University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Culturally responsive coaching and professional development for teachers working with English learners: a case study in early childhood education

(USC Thesis Other)

Culturally responsive coaching and professional development for teachers working with English learners: a case study in early childhood education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE COACHING AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS WORKING WTH ENGLISH LEARNERS:
A CASE STUDY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

by

Icela Pelayo

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Icela Pelayo
ii
DEDICATION
With great humility, I offer my dissertation to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I
recognize that without His strength, power and motivating Spirit working in me, I had no
reasonable hope to accomplish this work. May all the honor and glory be to Him.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am truly indebted and thankful for all that my committee, family and friends
have done to support me through this journey and bring me to successful completion of
my dissertation.
It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge Dr. Robert Rueda, my faculty
advisor and dissertation committee chairperson. Without his tremendous encouragement,
support, and counsel over the years, successfully completing the Ph.D. program and this
dissertation simply would not have been possible. I am also thankful for the support and
guidance that Dr. Dominic Brewer provided as one of my advisors during my doctoral
studies. Together, Drs. Rueda and Brewer represent a dream team of advisors—it is a
rare honor and privilege for any one graduate student to learn from and work closely with
two distinguished scholars. I can express with candor that working and interacting with
Drs. Rueda and Brewer was the best part of my Ph.D. experience at the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California.
I also would like to express my sincerest thanks for the feedback Drs. Gisele
Ragusa and Ramon Salcido provided on my dissertation while members of my
committee. Specifically, I thank Dr. Ragusa, Director of USC’s Center for Outcomes
Research and Evaluation (CORE), for helping me secure access to the research site in
which my dissertation study was ultimately conducted. My dissertation study was part of
one of CORE’s larger research projects; the larger study was funded by First 5 Los
Angeles. I thank Xiomara Mateo-Gaxiola and Diane Mendoza, CORE research
associates, for their time and positive contributions. I am very grateful for Dr. Ragusa’s
support.
iv
I also offer my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Adrianna Kezar for her warm and caring
disposition and open-door policy. Her cheerleading and positive energy motivated me to
press on when I experienced difficulties and challenges. I learned so much from her. I am
grateful for the many helpful and reassuring conversations about my research.
Without the tremendous support provided by the Rossier School of Education and
The Graduate School, I would not have been able shoulder the heavy burden of pursuing
a doctoral degree. I was awarded the 2011-2012 Provost’s Dissertation Completion
Fellowship provided by The Graduate School of the University of Southern California.
This prestigious award made it financially possible to devote my full attention to my
dissertation research study and writing in my last year. Studying and researching at USC
was not only an honor but a blessing as well. The sheer generosity I have experienced in
my time at USC is truly humbling. There are no words to express my gratitude.
I also express gratitude for both Dianne Morris and Aba Cassell of the Ph.D.
Program in Urban Education Policy at the Rossier School of Education. If it were not for
their consummate professionalism, friendly assistance, and genuine caring, I could not
boast now of the positive experience in my doctoral studies. I thank them both for
working so hard to make the pursuit of a Ph.D. a truly remarkable experience.
My family—especially my mother, Catalina Pelayo—has sacrificed immensely to
provide me the opportunity to pursue my dreams. I am grateful for the great patience and
kindness my parents and siblings demonstrated over many years when I was not fully
present and available because of my unyielding commitment to my studies. I would also
like to thank all my dear friends, especially Cecilia Sam, Kris De Pedro, Katie Moulton,
and Jaime Cervantes who at one time or another acted as a sounding board, listened to
v
me as clarified my thoughts, helped me find my voice and lifted me up with kind words
of encouragement, praise, and prayer. I would also like to give a special thanks to
Heather Zenone for her continued support over the last decade as she helped me dream
up ideas, set goals and achieve them. I thank Heather for helping edit earlier versions of
this manuscript and offering her honest feedback. I also thank Dr. Guadalupe Garcia for
her time and help editing the final version of my dissertation manuscript. I take full
responsibility for any and all remaining mistakes and errors that remain.
Finally, I give my deepest praise and thanksgiving to the Lord God Almighty for
granting me the strength to persevere despite my reluctance to go on in the face of trials.
Thank you, Dear Lord, for answering my prayers, preparing the way, and carrying me
through it all.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

ABSTRACT vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 9
Topic and Purpose 11
Potential Significance 12
Research Questions and Focus 15

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE 17
Theoretical Framework 17
Culturally Responsive Pedagogies 20
Early Childhood Literacy 37
Teacher Professional Development 48
Gaps in the Research 64
The Study and Research Design 67

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 68
Rationale for Methodology 68
Research Design 69
Participants and Setting 70
Data Sources and Measures 74
Data Analysis 82
Triangulation of the Data 85
Trustworthiness 87
Chapter Summary 88

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 90
The Local School Context 91
The Five Teacher Cases 93
Cross-Case Analysis: Overall Summary of Cases 161

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 172
Summary of the Findings 172
Relating Study Findings to Existing Literature and Research in the Field 176
Limitations of the Study 183
Next Steps: Future Research Agenda 185
From Research to Practice 189

REFERENCES 199

APPENDIX 207
vii
ABSTRACT
Literacy is the foundation for high academic achievement and educational
attainment; it is critical that young English learners (ELs) become proficient in literacy to
facilitate later success. Teachers must have access to effective training that prepares them
to work with diverse populations. The multiple case study was situated in an urban and
bilingual setting and examined how early childhood teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and
practices with respect to working with ELs changed over time with culturally responsive
professional development (PD). The culturally and linguistically responsive PD
intervention model incorporated highly individualized coaching and teacher support.
Teachers were discussed both individually and collectively. The five salient themes from
the cross case analysis were a shift in viewing culture as content for lesson and activities
to culture as a context for learning, a shift in passive role of the family in the child’s
education moving toward fostering an authentic home-to-school connection, a shift
toward using more culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices aimed at
improving instruction, a shift from narrow school-centered notions of literacy toward
incorporating family literacy practices, and a shift in teachers’ thinking about their roles
as educators, moving toward awareness of agency, expertise and self-efficacy. The study
findings suggest that: a culturally and linguistically responsive coaching model of PD is a
promising approach; same ethnicity/language are no guarantees for effective instruction;
training teachers to be culturally responsive requires a culturally responsive approach;
teachers have their own funds of knowledge which can and should be tapped; and
effective coaching requires intensive scaffolding. The content and approach of the PD
intervention developed in this study could not only serve as a model for future large-scale
viii
studies, it could also promote evidence-based instructional practices and inform future
education policy efforts at the local level and beyond.
9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
What makes a good teacher? How do good teachers make a positive impact on
student achievement? In a recent review of education production function literature
(Pelayo & Brewer, 2010), the authors demonstrated that some teacher characteristics
such as total years of experience, teacher certification, or advanced degrees have not been
found to significantly predict student achievement. Quantitative studies, which tend to
examine only these types of teacher characteristics, are able to account for three percent
of differences among teachers. Hence, 97% of teacher characteristics are left
unaccounted for in the education production function literature (Goldhaber, Brewer &
Anderson, 1999) even as researchers generally agree that teachers are the most important
school factor affecting student achievement (Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2006; Hanushek,
Kain, Rothstein & Podgursky, 2004; Jacob, 2007; Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002;
Rivkin, Hanushek & Kain, 2005; Rockoff, 2004). One indicator of teachers’ importance
is that having five ‘high-quality’ teachers in a row could make up the deficits in the
preparation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Rivkin, Hanushek & Kain,
2005). Clearly, teacher quality matters. However, low-income minority students in
urban schools are more likely to have teachers with the least experience and training
(Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2006; Jacob, 2007; Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002;
Rumberger & Gándara, 2004).
Literacy is the foundation for high academic achievement and education
attainment, yet English learners (ELs)—students whose first language is not English and
in whose homes a language other than English is most often used—are among the lowest-
achieving groups of all students, especially in English language arts and reading.
10
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessment results for 4
th
-
grade ELs are alarming; nationally only seven percent (7%) of ELs scored in the “at or
above proficient” category
1
whereas in California, only five percent (5%) of ELs scored
“at or above proficient” and in Los Angeles that figure lower still: two percent (2%). In
8
th
grade, the situation is even worse: nationally, only three percent (3%) of ELs scored in
the “at or above proficient” category whereas in California, only 3% of ELs scored in the
“at or above proficient” category. In Los Angeles, the fraction of ELs that scored “at or
above proficient” is so small that a percentage was not reported (rounded to zero). Given
that ELs represent a large proportion of students not only in California, but in Los
Angeles area schools and that, as a group, they generally perform lower than their non-
EL peers on reading and English language arts assessments, educators in the region
undoubtedly face significant challenges in addressing their educational needs. Whereas
the total U.S. population grew 6% between 1979 and 1999, the EL population increased
by 138% (Harper & de Jong, 2004). California has the largest EL student population,
with 30% of all ELs in the country (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly & Callahan,
2003; Grissom, 2004). These sweeping demographic changes challenge the education
system to find effective ways to improve the academic outcomes for ELs—the fastest-
growing student population in our nation’s public schools (NCELA, 2006).
Based on student achievement indicators described above, having “high-quality”
teachers is especially important for EL students. If total years of experience, teacher
certification, and advanced degrees do not necessarily explain student achievement, then
what other teacher characteristics and/or abilities do matter for student achievement?
Specifically, what are some characteristics of successful teachers of culturally and

1
Nationally, only one percent (1%) of ELLs scored in the ‘advanced’ category on the 2011 NAEP.
11
linguistically diverse and/or EL students? One major example of a teacher characteristic
that may have huge implications for student achievement, but that has been quite difficult
to measure using quantitative methods, is teacher pedagogy. Teacher pedagogy is more
than observable specific and discreet teaching behaviors—it also includes the underlying
beliefs, attitudes, disposition and knowledge that cannot be readily observed but that
manifests in teachers’ instructional practices. Generally, when student achievement is
low and/or learning outcomes are poor, what is suggested is that teachers require
professional development and training to help them improve instructional practices.
Specifically, in terms of the under-performance of culturally and linguistically diverse
students, culturally responsive pedagogy is often offered as a solution. But what is
culturally responsive pedagogy?
Topic and Purpose
Culturally responsive pedagogy aims to address the needs of culturally and
linguistically diverse students. Proponents of culturally responsive pedagogy argue that
educators need to move away from more traditional pedagogical practices and viewing
students from a deficit perspective towards affirming students’ backgrounds and
languages and viewing student’s experiences as funds of knowledge, or assets they bring
to the classroom that can serve as a bridge to new academic learning. Ladson-Billings’
(1992, 1994, and 1995) and Gay’s (2000 and 2010) work have primarily focused on
African American students, whereas Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2009, and 2011) include
Latino and Spanish-speaking EL students. Tharp and his colleagues’ early work focused
on Native Hawaiian students and has since moved toward looking at Navajo students
(Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose & Tharp, 2002) and Spanish-speaking ELs (Doherty,
12
Hilberg, Pinal & Tharp, 2003). Short and her colleagues focus exclusively on ELs
(Echevarria, Short & Powers, 2006). Although the research in this area has evolved and
a variety of student populations have been studied, ELs—and the policy and issues
around educating them—have garnered much national attention in the last twenty years,
fueled in large part by demographic changes and inflammatory politics (Crawford, 1997).
Yet, teachers generally feel unprepared to work with ELs (Rumberger & Gándara, 2004;
Verdugo & Flores, 2007).
Culturally responsive pedagogy seems to offer a solution for addressing the
challenges associated with educating culturally and linguistically diverse and/or EL
students. However, teachers need to become proficient in using culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practices. Currently, however, there are few effective
professional development models that address culturally responsive pedagogy. As the
NAEP scores highlighted above illustrate, outcomes for students get progressively worse
as student get older. As such, many researchers advocate taking a prevention orientation
as a way to reduce later school failure among “at-risk” youth. Thus, focusing efforts at
the preschool level may be an important place to focus professional development efforts
(Justice, Kaderavek, Fan, Sofka & Hunt, 2009; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
Potential Significance
The field of educational research is vast, yet there is no single body of literature
that specifically addresses the unique academic needs of the youngest culturally and
linguistically diverse and/or EL students or how to prepare teachers who work with this
population to provide effective instruction. While research on culturally responsive
pedagogy addresses ELs, research on early childhood literacy is only beginning to
13
address culturally and linguistically diverse students. The literature on teacher
professional development addresses the need for teachers to engage in culturally
responsive instruction, yet there are few models with robust evidence to prove
effectiveness in either changing teachers’ practices or that these changed practices result
in improved instruction that can be directly tied to specific and measurable student
outcomes. Even as there is much literature in all three areas, there is little intersection
among these strands of research. Thus, there is no unified body of research that speaks
authoritatively on and directly about the unique academic needs of EL student in early
childhood education and how professional development focused on culturally responsive
teaching practices could help early childhood educators improve their instructional
practices.
If improving the academic outcomes of ELs is an important educational goal, then
it imperative to understand how teachers can address their specific needs and challenges.
In efforts to provide practical solutions for practitioners, researchers often suggest
professional development as a solution for improving education. Many assumptions
about teacher professional development abound. One assumption is that if there is no
evidence of certain instructional practices observed in a teacher’s class, then the teacher
must not have knowledge of them. In contrast, if there is evidence of these specific
instructional practices, the assumption is that the teacher must have knowledge and also
possess meta-cognitive awareness of his/her practices. Another related assumption is
that, if teachers acquired specific knowledge or a particular skill set, then student
outcomes would improve. Is it the case that if we do not see evidence for something, it is
because the teacher lacks knowledge or is unaware of it? Lyon and Moats (1996) argued
14
that teachers do not have enough knowledge about language and, over a decade later, in
an update article, Moats (2009) still insisted that teachers lack enough knowledge about
language. Joshi et al. (2009) provided evidence that teachers are underprepared to teach
reading. Would student outcomes really improve if teachers were knowledgeable about
a given intervention? Is it possible that teachers do in fact “know” and, for a variety
reasons, do not adopt best practices or use effective interventions? Alternatively, it may
be the case that some teachers do, in fact, adopt best practices but do not recognize them
by the jargon that educational researchers use. According to Cunningham et al. (2009),
there is a mismatch between self-reported and best practices among teachers. Moreover,
there is evidence that teachers do actually lack appropriate training. Thus, if teachers
lack so much relevant information, then the most basic questions are: What do teachers
actually know? How is teacher knowledge constructed, perceived, documented, measured
by them and others? How can this information be used to improve teachers’ practices for
effective instruction?
There is a body of research that addresses teacher knowledge, ability and beliefs
(Drucker, 2003; Fives & Buehl, 2008; Kagan, 1992; Lyon & Weiser, 2009). Before
education researchers move to prescribe professional development to teachers as the
solution for addressing pressing challenges at the classroom level, a better understanding
of teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and instructional practices with respect to the specific
students they teach is necessary. For example, the notion that “good teaching for ELs is
just good teaching” is a common view among educators (Drucker, 2003). What is “good
teaching” and do teachers know what constitutes good teaching? What do teachers
actually know about how young ELs learn? While it may be the case that some effective
15
strategies that work for ELs also work well for other students, does that mean that ELs do
not require specialized instruction of some kind? In other words, is it simply that good
teaching for ELs is just good teaching, or is there something more that needs to be
considered? According to Gunderson (2008), teachers do not know much about how to
teach ELs; and this is especially true for inexperienced teachers working in poor urban
schools (Rumberger & Gandara, 2004).
Research Questions and Focus
The purpose of the study was to learn what a group of early childhood teachers in
an urban and bilingual setting believe and know about working with and teaching ELs,
specifically the extent to which they currently use culturally responsive teaching
practices in their classrooms. On the basis of that information, the research could design
and provide these teachers with professional development on culturally responsive
teaching practices and determine whether or not the professional development
intervention results in changes in teachers’ instructional practices. Thus, the research
questions are the following:
1. What are early childhood teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices with
respect to working with and teaching English Learners (ELs)?
2. How do early childhood teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and practices change
over time with a culturally responsive coaching model of professional
development addressing culturally responsive teaching practices?
The following chapter presents a review of the relevant literature on culturally responsive
pedagogy, early childhood literacy, and teacher professional development. Chapter three
describes in detail the research methodology used for the multiple case intervention study
16
that was carried out in efforts to answer the above research questions. Chapter four
presents the study findings for each of the five teacher cases and a cross-case analysis.
Chapter five provides a discussion of case study findings, situates and connects these to
existing literature in the field, suggests relevant policy implications and concludes with
final remarks.

17
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE
As mentioned above, culturally responsive pedagogy, early childhood literacy,
and teacher professional development are three strands of important educational research
attempting to address EL students with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
Although each strand is useful for understanding aspects surrounding the issues of
educating young ELs, it is important to draw together and synthesize the three bodies of
research to provide a more nuanced perspective for understanding the unique needs of
young ELs. The following review of the literature synthesizes the different bodies of
work to create an integrated body of knowledge. The review identifies gaps in
understanding and provides a guide for further study. First, the theoretical framework—
socio-cultural and social constructivist theories—that anchored these bodies of work is
presented. Next, each body of literature—culturally responsive pedagogies, early
childhood literacy, and teacher professional development—is examined and critiqued.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the gaps in the research and presents the
study and research design.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical underpinnings for much of the work on cultural responsive
pedagogy are rooted in a sociocultural and social constructivist framework (Vygotsky,
1978). In the sociocultural perspective, learning does not occur only in an individual’s
mind—it is also influenced by the social context of learning. In this framework,
participants are active in the construction of knowledge whereby sense-making is a
process of negotiating meaning. The participants and the social environment interact and
shape one another. Thus, the learning environment and learners are interrelated. Culture
18
factors prominently in shaping the social context of learning, although, according to
Erickson (2004), definitions of culture have not been very helpful because experts do not
agree on what culture really is. Erickson (2004) presents multiple conceptions of culture
in his discussion of multicultural education, and points out that culture is a social
construction:
Culture can be thought of as a construction—it constructs and we construct it.
That is, all thoughts, feelings and human activity are simply not natural, but are
the result of historical and personal experiences that become sedimented as
culture in habit. Culture varies, somehow, from one person or group to
another….[W]hat we see, know and want is culturally constructed…Even though
some of us show up to what seems to be the same event, how we experience it is
never quite the same across the various individuals who have joined together in
interaction…Individually and collectively, we make cultural worlds and they are
multiple (p. 37).

Here, Erickson speaks of the multiplicity of experiences around culture, describing it as a
highly interactive and social process. Working from this description of culture as a social
construction that is shaped by and also shapes us, then culture is dynamic—not static or
rigid. In an increasingly culturally and linguistically pluralistic society, conceptions of
culture and cultural models factor prominently in discussions of the context of schooling
and learning environments, especially when addressing the academic development of
students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) discussed examining cultural models and cultural settings as units of
analysis for research seeking to link problems of minority underachievement and school
reform efforts.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) defined cultural models as “shared mental
schema or normative understandings of how the world works, or ought to work” in which
behavioral, cognitive and affective components are incorporated (p. 47). This is
19
consistent with Erickson’s multiple conceptions of culture. Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001) drew a distinction between cultural models and cultural settings in which the latter
refers to social contexts where individuals interact or engage in an activity to accomplish
something they jointly value.
Moll’s (1990) funds of knowledge theory is an example of work undergirded by
sociocultural and social constructivist theories. Over the years, Moll and colleagues
developed the concept that students are not empty vessels, building on Freire’s (1970)
critique of the banking model of teaching and learning. Rather, Moll acknowledged that
all students bring with them experiential backgrounds, including culture and language.
The funds of knowledge theory stands in contrast to the deficit perspective
commonly expressed about the “challenges” of working with culturally and linguistically
diverse students and their families. From a deficit orientation, educating ethnic/racial and
linguistic minority students is difficult because their cultural difference is considered an
impediment to learning and academic success. In Moll’s funds of knowledge view,
students and their families possess a wealth of knowledge that is an underutilized
resource for academic learning (Gonzales, Moll and Amanti, 2005). The notion of
“activating students’ prior knowledge” is a tool that helps connect to and engage with
academic content, but teachers cannot activate this prior knowledge when they know
little about their students. Learning about the knowledge, perspectives, beliefs, and
experiences of students and their families can help teachers provide more effective
instruction. In recognizing that students and their families have collective funds of
knowledge, educators have access to a valuable educational resource that can be used to
bridge student learning.
20
Culturally responsive pedagogies are rooted in sociocultural and social
constructivist theories of knowing, teaching, and learning. Moreover, working from this
perspective necessitates valuing and validating the experiential backgrounds—including
culture and language—of all students and their families.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
Since the 1970s and 1980s, researchers have studied the mismatch between
classroom instruction and students’ home cultures. One of the most ground-breaking
studies in this area, conducted by Au and Mason (1981), found that, when classroom
interaction was compatible with interaction patterns in Hawaiian children’s native
culture, the students demonstrated positive achievement-related behaviors as compared to
students whose teachers’ instructional patterns conformed to typical U.S. classroom
patterns. Furthermore Au and Jordan (1981) first introduced the term “culturally
appropriate” to describe pedagogy that incorporated aspects of the students’ cultural
backgrounds in their reading instruction. Thus, commonly used phrases such as
“culturally sensitive,” “culturally compatible” and “culturally congruent” emerged
decades ago from the research and are used to describe alternative teacher pedagogies
aiming to address the learning needs of diverse student populations. These terms are
often used interchangeably although there are nuanced distinctions among them. Before
examining the research on this topic, the most prevalent definitions and scholarship in the
field is presented to provide a broader understanding of culturally responsive pedagogies.
What is Culturally Responsive Pedagogy?
Culturally responsive pedagogies are undergirded by sociocultural and social
constructivist theories, as discussed above. The authors most associated with culturally
21
responsive pedagogies—Ladson-Billings (1994), Gay (2000), and Villegas and Lucas
(2002)—also work from a critical perspective, making central in their theories the tenet
that teachers and schools have much power to shape the social landscape of schooling for
students (Bourdieu, 1986; Giroux, 1989). The term culturally relevant pedagogy and
culturally relevant teaching are most often associated with the work of Gloria Ladson-
Billings, an African American feminist scholar whose early work focused on improving
the education of African American youth. According to Ladson-Billings (1994),
culturally relevant pedagogy refers to teaching that:
[U]ses the students’ culture to empower students to be able to critically examine
educational content and process and ask what role they have in creating a truly
democratic and multicultural society. It uses the students’ culture to help students
create meaning and understand the world. More than just academic success, it
pushes students toward social and cultural success (Ladson-Billings & Henry,
1990, p. 82).

Furthermore, the purpose of culturally relevant pedagogy is “to posit an effective
pedagogical practice that addresses student achievement but also helps students to accept
and affirm their cultural identity while developing critical perspectives that challenge
inequities that schools (and other institutions) perpetuate” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p.
469.) Culturally relevant pedagogy is not only theoretically rooted in a critical paradigm.
It also draws on a framework including the ethics of caring (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings,
1984, 1991). Rather than just affective connections among people, Ladson-Billings
(1995) argues that caring refers to “the articulation of greater sense of commitment to
what scholarship and/or pedagogy can mean in the lives of people” (p. 473).
According to Ladson-Billings (1994), the three broad propositions of culturally
relevant pedagogy are conceptions of self and others, social relations, and conceptions of
knowledge. While Ladson-Billings (1995) sets forth these three broad propositions as a
22
range of teacher behaviors, she argues that these are “not fixed or rigid behaviors that
teachers must adhere to in order to merit the designation “culturally relevant” (p.478).
However, Ladson-Billings is not the only prominent scholar working on ways to provide
a more relevant learning experience for African American children. Geneva Gay also
developed a body of work on culturally responsive teaching. Gay (2002) defines
culturally responsive teaching as:
Using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically
diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively. It is based on the
assumption that when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived
experiences and frames of references of students, they are more meaningful, have
higher interest appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly (p. 106).

According to Gay, the use of culturally responsive teaching would result in success such
that “the academic achievement of ethnically diverse students will improve when they are
taught through their own cultural and experiential filters” (Gay, 2002). Much like
Ladson-Billings’ work, Gay’s work on culturally responsive teaching is also theoretically
grounded in a critical paradigm. There are five essential elements of Gay’s culturally
responsive teaching: a) developing a knowledge base of cultural diversity; b) designing
culturally relevant curricula; c) demonstrating cultural caring and building a learning
community; d) cross-cultural communications; and e) cultural congruity in classroom
instruction. Like Ladson-Billings, Gay (2002) argues these are not exhaustive but serve
as suggestions for the “skills and knowledge needed to prepare teachers to work more
effectively” with ethnically and culturally diverse students (p. 114). Gay’s idea of
cultural scaffolding—using students’ own culture and experiences to expand their
intellectual horizons and academic achievement—is related to Moll’s funds of knowledge
as discussed in the previous section.
23
While Ladson-Billings’ culturally relevant pedagogy and Gay’s culturally
responsive teaching dominated the education field in the 1980s and 1990s, Villegas and
Lucas contributed to this body of work by developing ways to educate culturally
responsive teachers. Villegas and Lucas (2007) cited the National Research Council
(2000) for their conception that culturally and linguistically responsive teaching is
grounded in an understanding of the role of culture and language in learning—a
constructivist view of learning. According to Villegas and Lucas (2007), the main role of
culturally and linguistically responsive teachers is to ”support students’ learning by
helping them build bridges between what they already know about a topic and what they
need to learn about it” (p. 29).
Villegas and Lucas also work from a decidedly critical perspective; in their view,
schools can potentially serve as site for social transformation (Bourdieu, 1986; Giroux,
1989). Villegas and Lucas (2007) argued that teachers lacking “sociocultural
consciousness will unconsciously and inevitably rely on their own personal experiences
to make sense of students’ lives—an unreflective habit that often results in
misinterpretations of those students’ experiences that leads to miscommunication” (p. 3).
These views are in line with Ladson-Billing (1994, 1995a, 1995b, and 1998) and Gay
(2000 and 2002). According to Villegas and Lucas (2002), culturally responsive teachers
are socio-culturally conscious; hold affirming views about diversity; are change agents;
embrace constructivist views of knowledge, learning and teaching; learn about students’
lives outside of the classroom; and use culturally responsive teaching practices. Villegas
and Lucas (2002) defined culturally responsive teaching practices as those that involve
all students in the construction of knowledge, build on students’ personal and cultural
24
strengths, help students examine the curriculum from multiple perspectives; use varied
assessment practices that promote learning, and make the culture of the classroom
inclusive of all students.
Villegas and Lucas (2002) offered their framework for professional development
initiatives aiming to educate culturally responsive teachers. Like Ladson-Billings and
Gay, Villegas and Lucas maintained that successfully teaching culturally and
linguistically diverse students requires a shift in pedagogy and approach to teaching
rather than a simple application of a few specific strategies or techniques. To further
build on their approach to educating culturally responsive teachers, Lucas, Villegas and
Freedson-Gonzalez (2008) discussed linguistically responsive teacher education and the
need to prepare classroom teachers to teach EL students. They argued that most
mainstream teachers have little to no preparation to provide the type of assistance that EL
students require in order to learn academic content and skills while developing
proficiency in English.
Lucas et al. (2008) identify a set of principles that can serve as the foundation for
teaching EL students in mainstream classes and further outline linguistically responsive
pedagogical practices based on these principles. The authors suggest that teachers need a
broad set of knowledge and skills to be successful with a range of students and that they
also need to draw on established principles of second language learning in order to
address the specific needs of EL students. Lucas and her colleagues (2008) drew on
widely accepted and agreed-upon research from the field of second language learning to
put forth some essential understandings of second language learning for linguistically
responsive teachers. These essential understandings should guide linguistically
25
responsive teachers to learn about the language and academic background their EL
students and to identify the language demands inherent in the classroom tasks by
considering the relationship between the students’ linguistic abilities and the tasks
through which they are expected to learn (Lucas, Villegas & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008).
Thus, teachers need to scaffold learning for ELs by using extra-linguistic supports;
supplementing and modifying both oral language and written text; giving clear and
explicit instructions; facilitating and encouraging the use of students’ home languages;
engaging ELs in purposeful activities in which they have many opportunities to interact
with others and negotiate meaning; and minimizing the potential for anxiety associated
with being an EL student in mainstream classroom.
Over time, Lucas and her colleagues (2002, 2007, and 2008) developed a
framework for educating culturally and linguistically responsible teachers which draws
heavily on the work of both Ladson-Billings and Gay. As described above, definitions of
culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1994), culturally responsive teaching
(Gay, 2000) and culturally and linguistically responsive teachers (Villegas & Lucas,
2002, 2007, 2008) share much in common—the latter works logically to extend and build
on the former. Table 1 illustrates the overlap in definitions (Appendix).
Operationalized Models of Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
Two models are discussed in this subsection: The Five Standards of Effective
Pedagogy and The SIOP Model. The author considers these examples of culturally
responsive pedagogies because of their focus on addressing the academic issues and
learning needs specific to students from minority racial/ethnic and linguistic groups.
26
These culturally responsive pedagogies extend from theory into validation of measures
and testing of models.
The Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy. The Five Standards of Effective
Pedagogy is model of teaching and learning developed over the course of over twenty
years through the work of Tharp and his colleagues (1988, 1992, 2000, 2003 and 2007) at
the Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP) lab school in Hawaii. From this
extensive body of ethnographic, cognitive and pedagogical research, five standards are
identified as critical for improving the learning outcomes for all students, especially those
at risk of academic failure due to cultural, linguistic or economic factors (Tharp, Estrada,
Dalton & Yamaguchi, 2000). The five standards “represent guiding principles for
instructional activities that promote active, effective student learning and that must be
adapted to varying contexts and diverse student needs” (Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal & Tharp,
2003, p. 2).
The Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy are grounded in sociocultural theory
with specific emphasis on the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).
According to Vygotsky (1978), all learning is situated within a specific sociocultural
context that affects what and how a person learns. The three propositions of Five
Standards for Effective Pedagogy (Gallimore & Tharp, 2002) are that collaboration
between students and teachers is accompanied by discussion, instructional activities are
meaningfully connected to students’ prior experiences and knowledge, and instruction is
dialogic and occurs within the learners’ zone of proximal development. Out of these
propositions arise five essential standards: joint production activity; language and literacy
development; contextualization; challenging activities; and instructional conversation.
27
According to Yamaguchi, Wyatt and Carroll (2005), The Five Standards for
Effective Pedagogy provide a structure “by which teachers can capitalize on what
students know and are familiar with to promote extensions to new ideas and more
complex ways of thinking” (p. 242). In contrast to difficulties in evaluating teachers’ use
of and/or the effectiveness of culturally relevant pedagogy, Tharp and his colleagues
have moved beyond the initial stages of defining effective pedagogy—they have already
identified and operationalized five essential standards into specific measurable teacher
behaviors. Doherty and Hilberg (2002) developed and validated a measure of Effective
Pedagogy, the Standards Performance Continuum (SPC), based on the five standards:
joint productive activity; language and literacy development, contextualization;
challenging activities; and instructional conversations.
Between 2002 and 2007, a series of studies were conducted to develop, validate,
and test the SPC rubric, provide teachers with intervention training on using the Five
Standards for Effective Pedagogy, and test the impact of that intervention on student
outcomes (Doherty & Hilberg, 2007; Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose & Tharp, 2002;
Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal & Tharp, 2003). This body of work demonstrates not only the
validity of the SPC to measure teachers’ use of the five standards of effective pedagogy,
but also suggests that using them works—that it may well be an effective model teachers
can use to improve student achievement, specifically among EL students. However, to
verify these results, more large-scale studies need to be conducted and with varying
populations.
The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model. Research
conducted over the last twenty years on the most effective ESL methods has found
28
evidence to support the use of certain techniques, which together form the basis for
sheltered instruction for EL students. Some of these proven techniques include slow
speech, clear enunciation, use of visuals and demonstrations, targeted vocabulary
development, connecting to students’ experiences, and the use of supplemental materials
(Genesee, 1999). While these are definitely useful strategies, according to Short and
Echevarria (1999), they may not be enough since EL students need systematic language
development. Short, Echeverria and Powers (1999, 2006, and 2008) have, over the
years, developed the SIOP model for making input comprehensible to ELs. The SIOP
model provides a framework for organizing instruction. While other models of culturally
responsive pedagogy address linguistically diverse students, the SIOP model was
developed explicitly for use with ELs, which also tend to come from cultural and
linguistic backgrounds that differ from that of their teachers and peers. According to
Short and her colleagues, the SIOP model is a lesson-planning and delivery approach
composed of thirty instructional strategies organized into eight areas that correspond to
the SIOP protocol (Short & Echevarria, 2005) on which teachers are evaluated:
preparation; building background; comprehensible input; strategies; interaction; practice
and application; lesson delivery; and review and assessment. This model is the most
widespread and is currently in use across the country (Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2008).
In an effort to provide teachers with professional development that could help
them better serve English learning students, the SIOP protocol was created as a tool for
education researchers to evaluate teacher practices (Short & Echevarria, 1999). During
the professional development training sessions, groups of teachers and researchers
observed videotaped lessons and, using the SIOP protocol, evaluated the teacher on a few
29
key areas. These professional development sessions provided teachers with the
opportunity to collaborate and reflect on their lesson planning. Teachers participating in
the professional development sessions began using the SIOP protocol as a model for
developing their own lesson plans, thus becoming a model for planning instruction.
During a seven-year research project (1999-2006) completed in collaboration with the
Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE), Short and
colleagues developed the SIOP protocol (Short & Echeverria, 1999), conducted a study
to validate the instrument (Guarino, Echevarria, Short, Schick, Forbes, & Rueda, 2001),
creating a model for instruction based on the protocol (Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2003).
Then, they conducted a study to test the effectiveness of the model (Echevarria, Short, &
Powers, 2006). Findings from the study indicate that students of teachers who
implemented the SIOP model performed slightly better than a comparison group on an
expository essay writing task, which approximated the tasks EL students are required to
perform in standards-based classrooms (Echevarria, Short & Powers, 2006).
Comparing Models of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

The pedagogies discussed in the above subsections can be divided into two rather
distinct groups: descriptive and theory-based or operationalized models. On the one
hand, Ladson-Billings’ culturally relevant pedagogy (1994), Gay’s culturally responsive
teaching (2000), and Villegas and Lucas’ culturally and linguistically responsive teachers
(2002) share a common theoretical framework—a critical perspective—which is
outwardly expressed or explicit. Most notably from the critical paradigm is the
commitment to social consciousness as a goal for both teachers and students shared
among these three pedagogies. There may be nuanced differences in the definitions, but,
30
ultimately, they share a common understanding and work from similar guiding
principles, which are evident even in the model names (Appendix, Table 1).
Whereas the works of Ladson-Billings, Gay, and Villegas and Lucas are
decidedly grounded theoretically in the critical paradigm, The Five Standards for
Effective Pedagogy is grounded in sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and The SIOP
Model is supported by research on ESL best practices (Genesee, 1999). Because of the
slight difference in theoretical orientations, neither the goals of The Five Standards for
Effective Pedagogy nor The SIOP Model articulate expansive goals such as critical
consciousness and social transformation, yet neither preclude them. All models
described above do address the cultural and linguistic diversity that different ethnic
groups represent. While Lucas and her colleagues (2008) expand their approach to
include teaching EL students, to date, theirs is an emergent model and studies providing
substantial evidence of its effectiveness have not been conducted. The Five Standards for
Effective Pedagogy and The SIOP Model are designed to address the specific needs of
ELs and have strong evidence of effectiveness validated through empirical studies.
While Ladson-Billings’ and Gay’s research has concentrated on African American
students, they have also incorporated other ethnic groups as well. The Five Standards for
Effective Pedagogy emerged from work with Native Hawaiian students, but has also
studied Native American students (Navajo) and Spanish-speaking Latino English
learners. Research on The SIOP Model has primarily been conducted with Latino
Spanish-speaking EL students.
The Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy and The SIOP model may not be
theoretically grounded in the critical paradigm, but such is not a requirement for taking a
31
constructivist approach to teaching and learning—all five models of culturally responsive
pedagogy draw on social constructivism, agreeing that teachers should use their students’
knowledge and experiences as a bridge to new learning. Fundamentally, all models share
the common understanding that the key to success for culturally and linguistically diverse
students is in using students’ funds of knowledge as an asset, not a deficiency (Gonzalez,
Moll & Amanti, 2005). In other words, teachers could improve student learning if they
more ably connected students’ background knowledge and experiences to the learning of
new academic content and skills rather than viewing cultural and linguistic diversity as
student deficiencies (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005). Invariably, all models espouse
the importance of recognizing and affirming cultural and linguistic diversity among
students in order to improve the academic achievement of historically under-achieving
groups.
Defining culturally responsive pedagogy provides the background information for
understanding the studies conducted over time by other researchers. While there is some
evidence to suggest culturally responsive pedagogy works, there are few empirical
studies to draw on, with the exception of the work done on the Five Standards of
Effective Pedagogy and the SIOP model. Table 2 summarizes the five models of
culturally responsive pedagogies (Appendix).
Is the Use of Culturally Responsive Pedagogies Effective?

Bell and Clark (1998) conducted a study on the use of culturally relevant reading
material and its effect on comprehension and recall among African American students.
Bell and Clark (1998) made a distinction between racial imagery and cultural themes in
reading content, and hypothesized that stories depicting Black characters would facilitate
32
more efficient recall and comprehension than stories depicting White characters. While
the data did not support the expectation that racial imagery would generate a differential
effect on recall of characters and events in the stories, the data confirmed the expectation
that recall of story events would be more efficient for stories depicting culturally relevant
themes when compared to culturally distant themes (Bell & Clark, 1998). Furthermore,
comprehension was more efficient for stories depicting both Black imagery and
culturally related themes when compared to stories depicting White imagery and
culturally distant themes. Bell and Clark’s findings (1998) support the theoretical
assumption, as proposed by Ladson-Billings (1994), that culturally sensitive reading
material improves information processing in African American students.
While Bell and Clark (1998) examined the effects of racial imagery and cultural
themes in reading content, Carol Lee (1995) examined the use of signifying, a form of
social discourse in the African American community, as a literary tool for studying
African American literature among African American students. Lee (1993, 1995)
conducted studies not only investigating the benefits of using ethnically diverse literature
with ethnically diverse students, but also whether using signifying as a scaffold for
teaching skills in literary interpretation is an effective practice. Lee’s (1995) intervention
study examined the efficacy of using a cognitive apprenticeship model (Collins, Brown
& Hollum, 1991). Instructional discourse (whole and small group work) was analyzed to
document changes in students’ understanding of signifying from a tool of popular culture
to its use as a literary tool within selected African American texts (Lee, 1995). Lee
documented the differences between the experimental classes and control classes.
Results from the quantitative portion of study indicated that both groups gained from pre-
33
to post-test. However, the experimental group achieved a gain from pre- to post-test over
the control group by a ratio of 2.28 to 1, with the T tests indicating the gain was
statistically significant (Lee, 1995). While the results are encouraging, two caveats must
be noted. First, the sample size was relatively small: experimental group (N=34) and
control group (N=19). Second, it was not possible to disentangle the effects of specific
variables measured—organization of instruction, locus of control, text selection, cultural
foundations, and objectives—in the experimental treatment that accounted for the
differences in pre- and post-test results.
However, results from the qualitative portion the study—analysis of the
instructional discourse—raised more questions than it answered. Lee captured how
teachers as experts modeled, coached, and scaffolded the use of signifying to interpret
difficult passages in African American literature and how students began to change their
ideas about the value of signifying from a culturally familiar practice to a useful
academic tool. The study would need to be replicated with a much larger sample and,
more importantly, a protocol for evaluating the instructional discourse should be created
and validated before any strong conclusions can be drawn about effectiveness of using
African American literature with African American students, drawing on signifying as a
student’s cultural resource to bridge new academic learning, or applying the cognitive
apprenticeship model as an instructional practice.
Unlike Ball and Clark (1998) and Lee (1993, 1995) who studied African
American elementary and high school students in the area of reading and literacy,
Brenner (1998) conducted a study of mathematics in efforts to learn more about the
effectiveness of using culturally relevant pedagogy. Brenner’s research at the
34
Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP) lab school included ethnographic and
cognitive studies, on which her pedagogical research expands. She documented the
research team’s efforts at developing culturally compatible mathematics instruction for
Native Hawaiians. Brenner (1998) conducted an instructional experiment on a
kindergarten class at the KEEP lab school. Since the teacher had already adopted a
classroom management style and organization shown to be culturally appropriate for
Native Hawaiian children (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), issues related to mathematical
content were the focus. Brenner (1998) developed four principles for instruction from
the implication of earlier ethnographic and cognitive testing data so that the teacher in the
experimental class was to use Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) as a “bridge” to introduce
terms in Standard English when introducing new topics, change the sequence of topics to
build from the students’ strengths, focus more on hands-on activities around each topic
instead of textbook work, and establish a new activity center as a choice for students
during math time.
As was the practice at the KEEP lab school, standardized tests were used as the
main achievement measure (Brenner, 1998). Total scaled scores in mathematics on the
Metropolitan Achievement Test (administered by the school every spring independent of
the study) were compared for both classes and student progress was monitored through
the textbook curriculum. The students in the experimental class scored much higher on
the standardized math test. Whereas the control class averaged in the 54
th
percentile, the
experimental class averaged in the 82
nd
percentile; a t-test comparison was found to be
statistically significant (T=2.74, p < .01) (Brenner, 1998). Furthermore, Brenner (1998)
reasoned that, since the reading scores at the end of the year on the annual standardized
35
test did not differ significantly between the control and experimental classes, the
differences found in the math test scores were due to the instruction and differences in
the sample of students.
In sum, literature on culturally relevant pedagogy and culturally responsive
teaching and teachers has been grounded in a critical paradigm, and research has been
primarily done using various forms of qualitative inquiry, such as ethnographies, case
studies, and narratives (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Gutstein, Lipman, Hernandez & de los
Reyes, 1997). Attempts have also been made at synthesizing the literature on culturally
relevant pedagogy to come to a broad and encompassing operationalized definition
(Morrison, Robinson & Rose, 2008; Osborne, 1996). As discussed above, only a few
quantitative studies on culturally relevant reading material have been conducted through
the years (Bell & Clark, 1998; Lee, 1995, 1998). These studies are narrower in scope,
focusing on fewer aspects of culturally responsive pedagogy.
Critiquing Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Research

Over the last forty years, work in this field has evolved from the early studies
conducted at the KEEP lab school in the 1970s through the 1990s to Ladson-Billings’
work on culturally relevant pedagogy to Gay’s work on culturally responsive teaching
and Villegas and Lucas’ work on culturally responsive teachers. Morrison et al. (2008)
captured the prevalent and fundamental teacher behaviors that constitute culturally
relevant pedagogy as described by researchers in the ethnographic research tradition
(Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995; Gay, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Going further, The
Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy developed by Tharp and his colleagues (1988,
2000, 2002, 2003, and 2007) and The SIOP Model developed by Short and her
36
colleagues (1999, 2003, 2006, and 2008) are fully developed models with corresponding
validated measures. According to Genesee (2005) in a review of research on EL, only
The Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy and The SIOP Model have any empirical
evidence to support claims of effectiveness. Thus, there is a paucity of empirical research
demonstrating the effectiveness of culturally responsive pedagogies. The studies that
have been conducted are small in scale, working with a few classrooms in a single
district. This is perplexing because culturally responsive pedagogy is commonly
suggested as an effective solution for addressing the learning needs of culturally diverse
students, especially ELs. Instruments specifically designed to measure teachers’ beliefs,
knowledge and use of culturally relevant pedagogies—as described by Ladson-Billings,
Gay, or Villegas and Lucas—are not available. Currently, it is only possible to measure
the implementation of The Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy or The SIOP Model
because researchers developing and studying those have created and validated
corresponding measurement instruments—the SPC and SIOP classroom observations
protocols, respectively.
Furthermore, there are few studies that link the use of culturally responsive
pedagogy to effective instruction as measured by changes in teachers’ practices. In other
words, there is little documentation supporting that teachers who use culturally
responsive instruction have a positive impact on student outcomes. Before evaluating the
effects of using culturally responsive pedagogies, teachers must first be trained to use
these. However, there were no studies in this field about professional development
interventions specifically addressing culturally responsive pedagogy in content or
approach. Teachers cannot be expected to use culturally responsive pedagogy without
37
having been trained to do so. Without studies documenting these efforts, it is not possible
to either determine the degree to which it is implemented effectively or know whether
culturally responsive pedagogy improves instruction or student outcomes.
Early Childhood Literacy
The focus of this section is to provide a broad understanding of early childhood
education and is organized by type of work: literature reviews on early childhood
literacy; preschool curriculum implementation studies; and studies engaging the topic of
culturally responsive pedagogy at the preschool level.
Literature Reviews and Syntheses
The landscape of early childhood education has evolved in the United States over
the course of over the last 150 years. Van Kleek and Schuele (2010) provided a
historical perspective on early childhood literacy in efforts to provide the context for
current trends in pre-literacy research. They argue that current perspectives, policies and
practices regarding the role of schools and families in developing young children’s
literacy are rooted in the conventional thinking of prominent philosophers and educators
of previous centuries. Over time, the responsibility of developing literacy among young
children has gradually shifted from families to schools. For children who come from
socio-economically disadvantaged families, preschool (Head Start) has come to serve a
compensatory role seeking to minimize later school failure by fostering a foundation of
learning skills and school readiness which are then built upon in elementary school and
beyond. In contrast, for children of more advantaged families, preschool serves as
enrichment (Van Kleek and Schuele, 2010). Head Start preschool programs are required
to provide a range of services, from health to social services and nutrition programs,
38
while also tending to the broad literacy, socio-emotional and physical needs of children.
When Congress reauthorized Head Start in 1998, implementation of learning standards in
areas of early literacy, language and numeracy skills were required across all programs.
In order to meet the increasing emphasis on accountability, Head Start programs adopted
broad-based curricula that addresses many domains of preschool development and also
includes extensive assessment components that allows for the tracking of children’s
developmental achievements and learning progress (Van Kleek & Schuele, 2010). While
learning standards and curriculum were adopted, research demonstrates that program
results and teacher quality vary widely across settings and over time (Van Kleek &
Schuele, 2010; Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, & Thornberg, 2009).
After the reauthorization of Head Start and as the implementation of new learning
standards and curriculum were underway, Foorman et al. (2002) conducted a review of
literature and research on emergent literacy, arguing that emergent literacy is subordinate
to oral language development, rather than language development being subordinate to
emergent literacy. Foorman et al. (2002) outlined six characteristics of emergent literacy:
oral language; phonological sensitivity; letter knowledge; concepts of print; emergent
reading; and emergent writing. The authors concluded that phonologic sensitivity and
letter knowledge should be taught in developmentally appropriate ways within the
context of a language-rich preschool environment that specifically targets vocabulary
enrichment (Foorman, Anthony, Seals, & Mouzaki, 2002). In addition to the six
characteristics of emergent literacy, Foorman et al. (2002) raised the issue of print
motivation, pointing out gaps in the research—the need for a better understanding of how
young children develop interest in reading-related activities—and called for more refined
39
constructs and measures of children’s interest in literacy, more learning about the
contributing factors that lead to print motivation, and the substantiation of a causal role of
print motivation in learning to read (Foorman, Anthony, Seals, & Mouzaki, 2002).
While Van Kleek and Schuele (2010) provided a historical perspective on early
childhood literacy, Pianta et al. (2009) offered a thorough review of research on the
effects of preschool education. While there is much scientific activity and scholarly
research in the field of early childhood, policies and practices in the field do not
necessarily reflect nor are seemingly aligned with research-based evidence (Pianta,
Barnett, Burchinal, & Thornburg, 2009). Pianta et al. (2009) made four major points
about the complexities and challenges surrounding early childhood education. First,
public preschool is multifaceted and complex, encompassing a wide range of funding
streams and targets, program models, staffing patterns and qualifications, and basic goals
that it cannot be understood as a uniform or a singular aspect in the public system of
support for young children. Second, compelling evidence exists that attending preschool
can boost development and school readiness skills and can have long-term benefits for
children and communities. Third, preschool experiences featuring developmentally
stimulating activities with adults are important for children. Fourth, central components
of program effects are teacher-child interactions and teachers’ effective implementation
of educational and developmental curricula (i.e. program quality). However, these
positive effects are not produced reliably by typical teacher preparation.
Pianta et al. (2009) focused their review of early childhood education on public
preschools because they are a pressing concern for society. As it stands, children in
families from the middle distribution of income have the least access to preschool.
40
Although children in poverty have access to Head Start (public programs), coverage is
not universal. Pianta et al. (2009) concluded that “increased public investment in
effective preschool education programs for all children can produce substantial
educational, social, and economic benefits, but only if the investments are in programs in
which teaching is highly effective” (p.51). Taken together—Van Kleek and Schuele
(2010) and Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, and Thornburg (2009)—these syntheses provide
essential context within which to situate and understand current issues in the field of
early childhood education.
Preschool Curriculum Implementation and Intervention Studies
As policy around early childhood education has tightened over the last several
years, the implementation of various curricula has been studied with great interest. Most
recently, Odom et al. (2010) conducted a study examining different forms of
implementation in early childhood curriculum research. Odom et al. (2010)
distinguished between structural and process interventions building on earlier work by
O’Donnell (2008) which highlighted these distinctions in her meta-analysis of
instructional implementation for school-age children. Whereas structural interventions
focus on the proportion of curriculum delivered, process interventions focus on quality of
delivery of the curriculum (O’Donnell, 2008). Furthermore, the authors also build on
Zvoch’s (2009) work examining implementation across sites and time. Odom et al.
(2010) looked specifically at the implementation of Children’s School Success (CSS)
curriculum in 51 preschools and across several states. They found that the proportion of
curriculum covered among sites studied ranged between 67% to 77%, and the mean
quality ratings ranged from 3.6 to 3.7 out of a possible rating of 5 (Odom, Fleming,
41
Diamond, Lieber, Hanson, Butera, Horn, Palmer & Marquis, 2010). For most sites, the
level of implementation was relatively consistent across time (flat trend). However, in
looking at different forms of implementation, Odom et al. (2010) found variation across
classes and teachers.
In a parallel qualitative study, Lieber et al. (2009) explored the factors that
influenced implementation of the CSS curriculum and found that there were “high” and
“low” implementers. Furthermore, Lieber et al. (2009) drew three primary themes that
centered on the curriculum and instruction-related factors, teacher-related factors, and
factors beyond the teacher. High implementers were found to have a philosophy
compatible with the CSS curriculum, were willing to engage in a partnership with
research staff, and were receptive to coaching. However, low implementers experienced
difficulties with classroom management, were not as receptive to working with staff, and
also experienced difficulty among adults (coaches) in the classroom (Lieber, Butera,
Hanson, Palmer, Horn, Czaja, Diamond, Goodman-Jansen, Daniels, Gupta, & Odom,
2009). Lieber et al. (2009) concluded that these factors contributed to the variations in
implementations seen across classes.
Justice et al. (2008) conducted a study examining the quality of language and
literacy instruction in preschool classroom serving “at-risk” students across 135 schools
all using the same prescribed curriculum. According to Justice et al. (2008), high-quality
literacy differs from high-quality language instruction such that “high-quality literacy
instruction features systematic and explicit direct instruction that teaches children about
code-based characteristics of written language, to include both phonological and print
42
structures” (p.52). For the purpose of their study, Justice et al., (2008) define “quality of
instruction” as:
A teacher’s ability to work flexibly with students to differentiate instruction and
respond sensitively to what they bring to the task, that is, to exhibit skilled
performance within dynamic interactions with children in learning activities that
unfold over time (p. 53).

Specifically, the study’s aim was to determine how procedural fidelity to the prescribed
curriculum affected quality of language and literacy instruction. Results from the study
indicated that the quality of language and literacy instruction was quite low, with few
teachers delivering quality instruction, as defined above (Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, &
Pianta, 2008). Although teachers demonstrated the ability to implement the prescribed
curriculum with a high degree of procedural fidelity, such was not associated with quality
instruction. The authors suggested that the findings from this study have important
implications for professional development: teacher training needs to have a sustained and
coherent focus on the process of instruction, rather than procedural execution, to improve
quality of instruction in language and literacy (Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, & Pianta,
2008). These findings are especially important in light of the fact that public preschools
(Head Start) overwhelmingly serve children in poverty and that participation in a
preschool program with high-quality language and literacy instruction is considered an
effective mechanism for improving the transition to reading instruction and reducing later
reading failure among “at-risk” children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
Rather than examining curriculum implementation per se, Justice et al. (2009)
conducted a randomized control trial studying the impact of teacher use of a print
referencing style during classroom-based storybook reading sessions conducted over an
academic school year. The focus was the effectiveness of a specific instructional practice,
43
print referencing, which is addresses print knowledge. Print knowledge is an important
domain for children’s early literacy development, yet there are few scientifically
validated techniques available to guide teachers’ instruction on print knowledge (Justice,
Kaderavek, Fan, Sofka, & Hunt, 2009). Reading with a print referencing style means
that teachers use verbal and nonverbal techniques to call children’s attention to, and
interest in, print within the storybook with simple techniques that include asking
questions about print, commenting about print and tracking with one’s finger along the
text while reading (Justice, Kaderavek, Fan, Sofka, & Hunt, 2009). The study included
106 preschool students in 23 classrooms serving disadvantaged children. The
intervention group used a print referencing style during 120 large-group storybook
reading sessions over a 30-week period. The control group read at the same frequency
and with the same storybooks but, instead, used their normal style of reading. The results
indicated that children whose teachers used a print referencing style showed larger gains
on three standardized measures of print knowledge—print concept knowledge, alphabet
knowledge, and name writing—with medium-sized effects (Justice, Kaderavek, Fan,
Sofka, & Hunt, 2009). Thus, Justice et al. (2009) concluded that, since their findings
converge with previous studies on the matter, print referencing intervention is an
effective approach for improving preschool-aged children’s print knowledge.
Preschool Studies Related to Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
Preschool is the nexus of scientific research, basic human development and public
education (Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, & Thornburg, 2009), so it is not surprising that
new trends in research often come through the field of early childhood education. While
studies on culturally responsive pedagogies often focus on older students, some
44
researchers have focused their work on emergent and family literacy practices and, thus,
on younger students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Duke &
Purcell-Gates, 2003; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Yaden et al., 2000). This section focuses on
work studying culturally responsive pedagogies within the context of early childhood
education.
A recent study by Kidd, Sanchez and Thorp (2008) is uniquely focused on
examining pre-service teachers’ experiences to determine which, if any, are responsible
for contributing to shifts in their culturally responsive dispositions and teaching practices.
The participants engaged in a two-year teacher preparation program designed to prepare
teachers to work with culturally, linguistically, and socio-economically diverse young
children and their families. As teacher educators, the researchers viewed their primary
goal as preparing teachers who are competent to work with students coming from diverse
backgrounds (Kidd, Sanchez, & Thorp, 2008). Thus, analyzing their own university’s
teacher preparation program was important for bridging the gap between research and
practice. Study participants, as an exit requirement for the program, wrote narratives (in
their final semester) about principles that would guide their teaching. The authors
analyzed and coded these narratives for emergent themes to document changes in
dispositions over time and determine what key program experiences or components most
influenced the changes. The three categories that emerged were beliefs and attitudes held
prior to or early in the program, dispositions held and teaching practices valued at the
completion of the program, and specific program experiences or defining moments
identified as influencing dispositions and teaching practices (Kidd, Sanchez, & Thorp,
2008). The five types of experiences that emerged as contributing factors in changes in
45
dispositions and teaching practices among pre-service teachers in this early childhood
teacher preparation program were readings related to issues of race, culture, poverty, and
social justice; internship in diverse communities; interactions with diverse families;
critical reflection; and discussion and dialogue (Kidd, Sanchez, & Thorp, 2008). Kidd et
al. (2008) concluded that the strength of the program came from “the multifaceted
approach that provided multiple opportunities for pre-service teachers to interact with
issues of culture, race, poverty and inequalities” (p. 328). Furthermore, Kidd et al. (2008)
suggested that developing culturally responsive dispositions and teaching practices is a
developmental process that differs among pre-service teachers.
Purnell and her colleagues (2007) developed a framework for integrating early
literacy skills and the arts. According to the authors, instructors could integrate arts into
early literacy instruction to cultivate the appreciation and celebration of cultures in
preschool classrooms. Children’s affective needs must be met in order for them to excel
academically; social stress and/or cultural ambivalence can potentially interrupt the
development of early literacy skills, since feelings of insecurity or social isolation can
lead students to shut down emotionally (Purnell, Ali, Begum, & Carter, 2007). Purnell et
al. (2007) claimed that “culturally responsive curriculum is designed to recognize and
accept the wide range of cultural differences that exist in every classroom” and that
culturally responsive teaching employs a pedagogy that accommodates the many aspects
that make up a student’s cultural identity. Her views are in line with research (Villegas
& Lucas, 2002, 2008, and 2009) previously discussed here. Purnell et al. (2007) claimed
that, when teachers incorporate culturally relevant reading materials in their literacy
46
instruction, they can engage students in the learning task in more meaningful and
personal ways and, at the same time, create an inclusive learning environment.
Furthermore, Purnell et al. (2007) drew on Eisner (2005) and Goldberg (2006) to
argue the benefits of integrating arts into literacy instruction—art is a method for
communication and helps people develop a sense of cultural and personal identity. The
authors suggest interactive read-alouds with multicultural books and accompanying art-
focused enrichment activities. Purnell et al. (2007) concluded that, when teachers
integrate content with high-quality multicultural literacy materials as part of regular
classroom activities, they model interest in, and acceptance of, difference. Unfortunately,
there are no empirical studies on the effectiveness of taking a culturally responsive
approach to integrating early literacy skills and art.
Ogletree and Larke (2010) also discussed the dilemma in preparing teachers to
use multicultural education principles. Like Kidd et al. (2008), the authors contended that
as the preschool population increasingly becomes more diverse, there will be a need to
incorporate programs and practices that reflect multicultural education. They suggested
Bank’s (2004) five dimensions of multicultural education: content integration;
knowledge construction; prejudice reduction; equity pedagogy; and empowering school
culture and social structure. This model of multicultural education principles does not
differ greatly from those espoused by Ladson-Billings (1994), Gay (2000), or Villegas
and Lucas (2002). Like Purnell et al. (2007) which encouraged the use of multicultural
literature to promote both cultural diversity and teach early literacy skills, Souto-
Manning (2009) suggested that using multicultural children’s literature serves as an
enabler of culturally responsive pedagogy because they tap into students’ interest and
47
prior knowledge. Prior knowledge can be used to springboard into a variety of thought-
provoking and high-quality dialogues and discussions between teachers and students.
Hassett (2008) offered a “multi-dynamic” theory for early literacy instruction that
combines researched foundations of early literacy instruction with socio-cultural theories
of language and literacy. Her multidynamic literacy theory has three tenets: literacy is
multi-faceted; literacy is socially constructed; and literacy skills must be relevant within
the lived worlds of children (Hassett, 2008). According to Hassett (2008), multi-dynamic
literacy theory allows teachers the pedagogical basis to exercise flexibility and
professional judgment in choosing the best instructional materials and approaches to
meet students’ early literacy needs and to also consider the socio-cultural context for
learning. In recent years, theories have emerged that take a socio-cultural and/or critical
approach to teaching preschool students. However, the evidence in the field is severely
lacking, especially when the emphasis has been on implementing and evaluating scripted
curriculum in early childhood education.
To summarize, the research on early childhood literacy is rich and provides much
information about the current state of preschool education and trends in emergent and
family literacy practices, which may be especially relevant for helping teachers better
support EL students. A wide range of studies dealing with preschool curriculum
intervention and implementation—which primarily focus on language and literacy
development—and literature advocating multicultural education and culturally
responsive pedagogy demonstrate the fertile ground that preschool settings offer scholars
for conducting research. To date, there are no empirical studies documenting the
effectiveness of professional development intervention focused on training teachers to
48
become more adept at culturally responsive teaching practices even as researchers call for
a more multicultural approach to preschool education. It is clear that studies looking at
student outcomes are, at least in part, dependent on teacher implementation of curriculum
or specific instructional practices, which tend to be taught in the early stages of
intervention studies. Thus, any effort aimed at changing specific student outcomes
necessarily requires more nuanced analysis of how teachers absorb new information and
develop expertise (Ofper & Pedder, 2011).
Critiquing Early Childhood Literacy Research
Research on early childhood literacy demonstrates that research in the field
focuses heavily on examining the effects of intervention programs targeting language and
emergent literacy and/or the implementation of such curriculum. There is also more
theoretical work in early childhood literacy advocating for a sociocultural and/or
multicultural approach. In addition, there are calls to be more culturally and linguistically
responsive to students. However, culturally responsive preschool curriculum has not
been developed or tested, much less provided to teachers as an intervention. Thus,
corresponding implementation studies have not been conducted either. The following
section reviews the related research on teacher professional development.
Teacher Professional Development
There are several areas of in the field of education appropriately focused on both
teacher education (pre-service) and teacher professional development (in-service). While
the above sections focused on the latest research on culturally responsive pedagogy and
early childhood literacy, this section focuses on the current research on teacher
professional development. Studies examining the implementation of curriculum at the
49
preschool level, whether or not it is culturally responsive, necessarily include teacher
training or professional development components. Professional development research
focuses on teacher variables and outcomes, namely how teachers respond to professional
development intervention. The following studies examine the effects of various
professional development initiatives on teachers’ knowledge, beliefs or instructional
practices. The studies discussed here either employed the use of coaching and mentoring
as a major component to professional development intervention or addressed culturally
congruent curriculum as the content of the professional development intervention.
What are the Characteristics of Effective Teacher Professional Development?
While Palardy and Rumberger’s (2008) study is not specifically about
professional development, it is included in this section because the findings from the
study led the authors to conclude that teachers require effective professional development
if student learning and achievement outcomes are to be improved. Palardy & Rumberger
(2008) used data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) to investigate
three areas of teacher effects—teacher background qualifications, attitudes, and
instructional practices. The authors used a multi-level statistical model, the hierarchical
linear model (HLM), to examine three levels nested within each other: student, classroom
and school levels. The ECLS sampled 20,000 kindergarteners enrolled in more than
1,000 public and private schools in the fall of 1998 and followed them through the fifth
grade. Students were tested in both reading and math near the beginning and end of
kindergarten and first grade, as well as near the end of third and fifth grade. At these
same intervals, parents, teachers and principals were surveyed regarding a wide range of
family, school, and community characteristics; teacher background, attitudes, and
50
practices; and classroom and school composition (Palardy & Rumberger, 2008). This
study used the longitudinal sample of first grade from the ELCS. Because the fall data
collection for the first grade was limited to an approximately a 30% sample of schools,
the first grade sample consists of 5,034 students. From this, students were omitted for a
variety of reasons including changing schools before the end of the year, repeating
kindergarten, or not having school or teacher IDs. The final sample included 3,496
students, 887 classrooms and 253 schools (Palardy & Rumberger (2008).
Results verified what most people have long assumed—teachers have a
substantial impact on learning (Palardy & Rumberger, 2008). The authors estimated
teacher effects on reading (effect size= 0.30) and math (effect size= 0.25) after
controlling for student inputs and classroom composition, which are two factors known
to be related to learning but are largely out of the teachers’ control. These effect sizes
convert to more than one-third of a school year. According to Palardy and Rumberger
(2008):
The achievement gain discrepancy could easily exceed an entire grade level in a
single year if one child has a highly ineffective teacher (two or more standard
deviations below average), and the other, a highly effective teacher (two or more
standard deviations above average) (p. 127).

In a similar vein, a string of highly ineffective teachers has a large impact on a child’s
learning trajectory during the course of K-12 grades. Thus, although effect sizes for
teacher quality on reading and math achievement may be small, they add up over time
and are meaningful in the aggregate (Palardy & Rumberger, 2008). Findings from the
study also indicated that teacher background qualifications have less of an impact on
student achievement gains than do instructional practices: NCLB “highly-qualified”
teachers do not necessarily equal highly effective teachers. As a result, Palardy &
51
Rumberger (2008) suggested that efforts should instead be focused on improving the
instructional practices of teachers through effective professional development.
Given that the significant differences in effective teachers were found in their
instructional practices and attitudes, rather than their background qualifications, such as
certification, the authors suggested that professional development is a worthwhile effort
to pursue. Palardy and Rumberger (2008) summarized effective professional
development as having five characteristics: it is sustained, it concentrates on improving
instruction, it provides active learning opportunities, it happens in interactive
environments among teachers, and it involves regular feedback (Hammond &
McLaughlin, 1995; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon & Birmna, 2002; Garet, Porter,
Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Palardy and Rumberger (2008) suggested that
effective professional development programs can help detect ineffective practices,
attitudes and behaviors and can help teachers develop the skills and attitudes needed to
improve instructional practices.
Coaching and Mentoring Studies
Above, Palardy and Rumberger (2008) delineated what effective professional
development looks like, and coaching as an integral component of professional
development seems to be a promising practice in providing teachers on-going support
and feedback concentrated on improving instruction. Landry et al. (2006) conducted a
quasi-experimental study examining a statewide intervention targeting Head Start
preschool teachers’ enhancement of children’s language and early literacy skills. This
two-year study was carried out across 20 Head Start sites, included 750 teachers (500
target and 250 control) with 370 classrooms randomly selected to conduct pre- and post-
52
test assessments (10 randomly selected children per class) (Landry, Swank, Smith, Assel,
& Gunnewig, 2006). There were systematic training procedures across both intervention
years which included multi-day summer training for coordinators, mentors and teachers
implemented with detailed mentor and teaching manuals. Mentors and coordinators
received a three-day session which included “how-to” procedures for side-by-side
coaching and for identifying and meeting the ongoing teacher training needs across the
school year. Next, target teachers receiving their first year of training participated in a
four-day small group (n=15), interactive workshop during the summer. Teachers in their
second year of intervention received a two-day refresher course using the same format
and covering the same content as the previous year. Workshops followed a structured
format that provided teachers with didactic information, followed by discussion,
problem-solving implementation issues and role playing the desired teacher behaviors.
The content areas ranged from professional practices such as room organization and daily
schedules to emergent literacy such as “scaffolding” language and learning throughout
the day, print book awareness, phonological awareness, and alphabetic knowledge.
Mentors met monthly during the intervention. Control teachers followed a business as
usual approach during their first year and received the training, coaching and support
during the second year of the study.
Landry et al. (2006) hypothesized that teachers receiving the professional
development intervention would have students who demonstrate greater gains in
cognitive development when compared to the control classrooms. Furthermore, the
authors also hypothesized, based on prior research, that teacher education, length of
program (half vs. full day) and a focused language and literacy curriculum would
53
moderate the influence of teacher development on student outcomes. Results did, in fact,
show greater gains for children in the target classrooms for all skills, especially language
skills in the second year of the study, but this varied by site (Landry, Swank, Smith,
Assel, & Gunnewig, 2006). Furthermore, the presence of a research-based early literacy
curriculum, higher levels of teacher education, and full-day versus half-day programs
were, in fact, significant moderators of intervention effectiveness (Landry, Swank, Smith,
Assel, & Gunnewig, 2006). Landry et al.’s findings (2006) suggest promise for a
professional development model that includes coaching and mentoring.
However, the authors point out challenges in bringing a teacher professional
development model to scale, most notably sustainability it over the long term. Teachers
with one year of training were better able to take advantage of the focused language and
literacy curriculum used at their sites, but, after two years of training, benefits were also
seen for teachers whose sites used more philosophical approaches (i.e. High Scope).
According to Landry et al. (2006), this suggests that, when programs are able to
implement only one strong year of training, it will be important to provide teachers with
focused, research-based language and literacy curriculum. After the two-year study,
Landry et al. (2006) followed up with a survey and found that 65% of the sites adjusted
their budgets to maintain the a mentoring program and 55% of the sites applied for state
and/or federal funding to continue to support the classroom literacy and language focus.
Furthermore, teacher survey responses indicated that teachers noticed differences in their
students’ skills, demonstrated an increase in confidence and morale and felt a renewed
commitment to teaching, which may have also been demonstrated in the decrease in
54
teacher attrition within the target group across the two study years (Landry, Swank,
Smith, Assel, & Gunnewig, 2006).
Neuman and Cunningham (2009) conducted a study on the impact of professional
development on teacher knowledge and quality early language and literacy practices in
center- and home-based care settings. According to Neuman and Cunningham (2009),
“effective teachers of early literacy must bring a substantial knowledge base, reflect an
understanding of child development, and the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
necessary to shape appropriate learning experiences that are engaging to children” (p.
533). Hence, the purpose of their study is to add to the body of knowledge on teacher
development since currently there is little converging evidence on the content or methods
that would best bring about results for preparation and development of high-quality
preschool educators (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009). To that aim, the researchers sorted
the study participants into three different groups: those receiving a professional
development course only, those receiving the course plus consistent coaching, and the
control group. To be eligible for the project, the practitioners needed to meet four criteria:
they needed to be open to taking a course at the local community college in pursuit of an
associates’ degree in early childhood education; they needed to be employed at least 20
hours per week in a licensed child-care center or home; they had to care for children aged
3 to 5; and they needed to have an agreement from a sponsoring organization if they
taught in a center (Neuman & Cunnigham, 2009). Chi-square analyses determined that
there were no statistically significant differences across the three groups by race or
experience in childcare. Differences were found for education level, number of previous
courses taken and age: the control-group participants were more educated, had taken
55
more courses, and were slightly older than the treatment-group participants (Neuman &
Cunningham, 2009).
The intervention consisted of a 45-hour, three-credit course in language and
literacy and reflected a set or core competencies reflecting the NAEYC, International
Reading Association and state licensing requirements. The courses used a lecture format
to present the week’s topics, followed by hands-on activities designed to link theory and
practice, and instructors used videotaped examples frequently in class to enhance
instruction and provide examples of quality practices (Neuman & Cunnigham, 2009).
Coaches also received a prescriptive model of coaching that focused on helping teachers
apply research-based strategies to improve student outcomes in language and literacy.
The model was based on a review of literature by one of the authors (Koh & Neuman,
2006) and is very similar to what Palardy and Rumberger (2008) suggested were
characteristics of effective professional development: coaching must be on-site; balanced
and sustained; facilitative of reflection; highly interactive; providing corrective feedback
to teachers, and helping them identify priorities and action plans. Coaching sessions for
the first 15 weeks of the study were aligned with the professional development course
and were held on-site for 60 to 90 minutes. Measure testing for teacher knowledge and
practices were used at both pre- and post-intervention. Interestingly, Neumann and
Cunningham (2009) found negligible difference among the group that received
professional development without the coach and the control group. However, the
teachers in the group receiving coaching in addition to the professional development
course demonstrated statistically significant differences in language and literacy practices
across both settings with substantial effect sizes (centers, 0.77 and home-based, 0.82)
56
(Neumann & Cunningham, 2009). As a result of these findings, the authors suggested
that coaching in addition to coursework may be a promising model for professional
development and a quality investment for teachers in early childhood education (Neuman
& Cunningham, 2009).
Domitrovich et al. (2009) conducted a randomized control trial to test whether or
not teacher quality in Head Start classrooms could be improved with the addition of
evidence-based curriculum components that target emergent language and literacy. The
participants were the lead and assistant teachers (n=84) in 44 Head Start classrooms. In
the spring, prior to the ensuing summer training and initiation of intervention, baseline
observations of the classrooms were conducted, and teachers reported on their
professional backgrounds, personal resources, and job perceptions (Domotrivich, Gest,
Gill, Bierman, Welsh & Jones, 2009). Lead and assistant teachers were observed on the
same day by the same observer. Similar procedures were repeated at the end of the
following spring, approximately after one year of intervention. Furthermore, the research
staff collecting teacher observations was not part of the intervention team and observers
were not informed of the intervention condition of the classrooms they observed, or of
the hypotheses of the overall study. In short, it was a blind study designed to promote
unbiased evaluations (Domotrivich, Gest, Gill, Bierman, Welsh & Jones, 2009). Teachers
received a four-day workshop training that covered the theoretical and developmental
model underlying the research-based developmentally informed (REDI) intervention.
The language and emergent literacy skill enrichment component of REDI focused on
vocabulary, syntax, phonological awareness, and print awareness. Teachers were trained
to use instructional materials for the existing curricula and also received mentoring in the
57
use of “language coaching” strategies, including vocabulary support, expansions and
grammatical recasts, and decontextualized talk to provide a general scaffold for language
development in the classroom (Domotrivich, Gest, Gill, Bierman, Welsh & Jones, 2009).
In addition, teachers were trained on social-emotional skill enrichment in four domains:
prosocial friendships; emotional understanding and emotional expression skills; self-
control (impulsive behavior); and problem-solving skills (conflict-resolution skills). The
corresponding teaching strategies to support social-emotional skill development included
training on how to create proactive rules and routines, positive management techniques,
using specific teacher praise, and emotion coaching (Domotrivich, Gest, Gill, Bierman,
Welsh & Jones, 2009).
Intervention teachers also received weekly mentoring support provided by local
REDI trainers who were experienced master teachers. Weekly consultations were
intended to enhance the quality of implementation through modeling, coaching, and
ongoing feedback. After about a three-hour observation that included modeling
intervention techniques or team teaching lessons, the mentor met with the teacher for
about an hour to discuss their weekly implementation plan forms. REDI trainers
(mentors) used examples and videotaped models to introduce skills concepts and
encouraged discussion about the specific use of strategies in the teacher’s classroom and
suggested practice activities for the coming week (Domotrivich, Gest, Gill, Bierman,
Welsh & Jones, 2009). Findings from this study indicated that, when compared to the
control group, intervention teachers talked with children more frequently and in more
cognitively complex ways, established a more positive classroom climate, and used more
preventative behavior management strategies (Domotrivich, Gest, Gill, Bierman, Welsh
58
& Jones, 2009). As a result of these findings, Domitrovich et al. (2009) concluded that
curriculum with professional development that includes mentoring can improve teacher
quality. Domotrivich et al. (2009) also pointed out that professional development
opportunities should include teacher assistants because they are physically present for
about the same amount of time and, thus, have the potential to contribute to teaching
quality and, ultimately, student outcomes. Furthermore, the lack of baseline differences
found in this study among teachers and teaching assistants is consistent with evidence
that teacher education and credentials are only weakly associated with variations in
preschool teaching quality (Early, Bryant, Pianta, Clifford, Burchinal & Richie, 2006).
These findings are consistent with the Neuman and Cunningham (2009) study described
earlier even as they studied teachers in different states and used different research
designs. These studies provide converging evidence for what works for the professional
development of preschool teachers.
More recently, Powell, Steed and Diamond (2010) specifically examined literacy
instruction improvement plans (n=1,504) developed by teachers and early literacy experts
in coaching sessions (n=280). The study was conducted in 31 Head Start classrooms (25
urban, 6 rural) with the goal of describing the general trajectory of coaching with respect
to content coverage, pedagogical emphasis (instructional material and teaching behavior)
and progression (new, repeated, and expanded plan) (Powell, Steed, & Diamond, 2010).
A second purpose of the study was to determine whether pedagogical emphasis and
progression in improvement plans differed across four major literacy content areas—
reading, writing, letter-word knowledge, and phonological awareness. According to
Powell, Steed, and Diamond (2010), the primary goal of literacy coaching is:
59
To help a teacher implement evidence-based practices that contribute to
meaningful improvements in children’s literacy and language outcomes…A
coach functions as an intermediary agent in promoting a teacher’s appropriate use
of…information [gained through PD], especially the adoption of evidence-based
practices (p. 149).

The research-based professional development (PD) program examined in this study was
part of the U.S. Department of Education’s Early Childhood Education Professional
Development Program, a school readiness initiative for children living in poverty. The
literacy coaching was a core component of the PD program implemented throughout
2002-2005 during national efforts to improve language and literacy outcomes for
children enrolled in Head Start programs (Van Kleek & Schuele, 2010). The PD
program had two main components: five full-day workshops conducted on Fridays across
a four-month period during the fall semester; and expert coaching conducted in
participating classrooms approximately every third week during the PD program.
Teachers received academic course credit and participated in the PD program as part of
their regular work schedule (Powell, Steed & Diamond, 2010). The workshop provided
teachers with information on evidence-based practices that promote early literacy and
language development. Coaches also attended workshops and received academic credit.
The coaching protocol followed an observe-assess-plan sequence (Powell, Steed &
Diamond, 2010). Coaches observed for 60 to 90 minutes and met with the teacher for
approximately 60 minutes to review the observation, discuss teachers’ reflections on the
observations and/or progress in implementing or improving literacy and language
instruction, and jointly generate improvement plans for classroom supports for students’
language and literacy development (Powell, Steed & Diamond, 2010).
60
Findings indicated that instructional improvement plans addressed practices that
promote children’s knowledge of letters and words to a greater extent than any other
literacy area. The study determined the general pattern of coaching gave little attention to
phonological awareness although all topics received equal coverage in the workshop
component (Powell, Steed, & Diamond, 2010). Furthermore, improvement plans
pertained to teaching behaviors to a greater extent than did instructional materials and
most plans focused on large group instruction. Interesting in this study is the attention
the authors paid to uneven treatment of PD material despite equal coverage. The authors
suggest that infrequent attention to phonological awareness instruction in coaching
sessions result from broad-based PD programs that may not be as conducive to in-depth
attention to specific instructional practices that teachers know little about and/or consider
low-priority outcomes for preschool programs (Powell, Steed & Diamond, 2010).
Furthermore, the authors concede that coaching style may be an important factor in the
study’s results. To that aim, Powell, Steed and Diamond (2010) suggested that future
research on literacy coaching needs to identify essential features of coaching and find
appropriate ways to assess the integrity of coaching sessions across specific coaching
dimensions.
Culturally Congruent Curriculum Studies

While studies in the previous subsections discussed research done on early
childhood literacy specifically or focused on preschool teacher professional development,
few empirical studies focus on professional development for teachers working with EL
students and in which culturally responsive teaching practices are the focus. The studies
in this subsection have an emphasis on science and are not conducted on preschool aged
61
children. Nevertheless, they are relevant because they discuss professional development
that helps teachers establish more culturally responsive teaching practices.
Okhee Lee’s work focuses on EL students and science education (2004, 2005,
2007, and 2008). She documented teacher changes in belief and practices in science and
literacy instruction with EL students (Lee, 2004) and reports the results of the multi-year
study (Lee, Deaktor, Enders, & Lambert, 2007). Lee (2004) found that establishing more
culturally congruent instructional practices was a gradual and demanding process which
required much teacher reflection, formal training, extensive support and sharing. Lee
(2005) also conducted a review and synthesis of the research in science education with
EL students where she discussed how instructional congruence, based in large part on
cultural congruence (Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995; Osborne, 1996), factors into the field
of science education.
Lee and her colleagues recently reported the results of a study examining the
impact of a three-year implementation of a professional development intervention on
science achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary school students
(Lee, Deaktor, Enders, & Lambert, 2007). Teachers were provided with instructional
materials and participated in a professional development workshop aimed at improving
their teaching practices and fostering positive beliefs about science and literacy with
culturally and linguistically diverse students. The study participants consisted of 56
third-, fourth-, and fifth grade teachers and 562 students in their classes at six elementary
schools in a large urban school district from 2001 through 2004. The study employed a
pre- post-test design with no comparison group, a limitation of the study. Nevertheless,
Lee et al. contend the results are valid because both teachers and students were part of the
62
intervention, the curriculum was closely aligned with the assessments instruments
(publically-released items from NAEP/TIMSS assessments were used to create the
assessment instrument), and that the results on assessments reflect the intervention (Lee,
Deaktor, Enders, & Lambert, 2007). Mean differences between pre- and post-test scores
were statistically significant in each year on all science measures for all grade levels.
These consistencies in results suggest that intervention was effective (Lee, Deaktor,
Enders, & Lambert, 2007). Thus, providing teachers with professional development on
instructional congruence and corresponding curriculum materials is an effective
intervention for improving student achievement among culturally and linguistically
diverse students.
Lee and colleagues recently looked at urban elementary school teachers’
knowledge and practices in teaching science to EL students (Lee, Lewis, Adamson,
Maerten-Rivera & Secada, 2008). The study involved 38 third-grade teachers who
participated in the first-year implementation of a professional development intervention
consisting of curricular units and workshops. The study examined four areas—teacher
knowledge of science content, teaching science for understanding, teaching science for
inquiry, and teacher support for English language development—using a questionnaire,
classroom observations, and post-observation interviews (Lee, Lewis, Adamson,
Maerten-Rivera & Secada, 2008). The four constructs examined were based on reform
documents in science (AAAS, 1987; NRC, 1996 and 2000) and English language and
literacy (TESOL, year). The results suggest that teachers’ knowledge and practices
generally reflect the professional development intervention, but not necessarily evenly
distributed across the four constructs. Lee et al. (2008) also found that teachers actually
63
under-reported their use of strategies for English language development when compared
to the classroom observations. The authors suggest that teachers may be unaware
regarding what they are doing in the classroom, even if these practices are effective.
Furthermore, the study’s results suggest that ongoing professional development needs to
consider the strengths and limitations of the teachers (Lee, Lewis, Adamson, Maerten-
Rivera & Secada, 2008).
Although the work is done with older EL students in elementary school settings
and focuses on science, Lee’s work, is valuable in that it moves toward studying
culturally responsive pedagogy and EL students in important ways—such as examining
professional development—by incorporating a variety of research methodologies to
answer pressing questions about the education of EL students, especially in under-studied
areas such as science or with age groups, such as early childhood and early elementary
students. More research, especially large scale studies, examining the use of culturally
responsive pedagogy with EL students is necessary. Taken together, the studies reviewed
on teacher professional development provide much information about current efforts in
the field. In particular, there is much converging evidence to support the a
comprehensive and collaborative approach to teacher professional development which
includes coaching and on-going support.
Critiquing Teacher Professional Development Research
The research on teacher professional development and coaching reviewed above--
specifically for preschool teachers—consistently demonstrates that effective professional
development is sustained over time, concentrates on improving instruction, engages
teachers in active learning opportunities, happens in interactive environments among
64
teachers, and includes regular feedback, as Paladry and Rumberger (2008) indicated.
However, the research does not thoroughly address how to get teachers to participate
meaningfully to maximize the benefits of professional development interventions.
Furthermore, the research on teacher professional development does not focus on early
childhood educators, and, while a few studies addressed culturally responsive instruction
as the content of the professional development intervention, no studies applied a
culturally responsive approach in delivering the intervention.
Gaps in the Research
Teachers face extraordinary pressure to improve the academic outcomes of all
students, but face even more challenges meeting the needs of their culturally and
linguistically diverse and/or EL students and could benefit from effective professional
development training. Currently, there is no national policy requiring teachers serving
ELs to have specialized training, even as demographic trends clearly indicate that ELs are
the fastest-growing student population in the nation’s public schools (Short &
Fitzsimmons, 2007). However, recently, California redesigned its teacher credentialing
process to reflect the need for teachers to be more adequately prepared to work with ELs.
As of 2006, training, or passing a test, in cross-cultural language and academic
development is a required component of the SB2042 credential. In addition, teachers can
receive training, or pass a test, in bilingual cross-cultural language and academic
development (BCLAD). As of 2006, all newly credentialed teachers in California who
will presumably work with ELs in mainstream classrooms and those working with ELs in
bilingual settings must have adequate training. Unfortunately, these new credentialing
65
requirements do little for those already teaching, and this population will require in-
service training.
What We Know and Still Need to Know
Teachers’ practices may be related to teachers’ beliefs about a given pedagogy
and/or reflect a personal philosophy of teaching (Flores & Smith, 2008), yet this was not
directly addressed in the literature on culturally responsive pedagogy. A different strand
of teacher research explores teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about cultural and linguistic
diversity, specially focusing on teachers’ views of ELs (Flores & Smith, 2008). Flores
and Smith (2008) revised the Language Attitude Scale (LATS-R), a teacher survey
originally designed by Byrnes and Kiger (1994) and also used by Velez-Salas, Flores and
Smith in 2005 (Appendix, Table 3). Their findings suggest teacher attitudinal beliefs
about EL students are influenced by multiple factors and that all teachers, regardless of
ethnicity, need exposure to diversity issues. Furthermore, the findings also suggest that
the amount of diversity preparation, purposeful experiences with EL students, and some
degree of bilingualism on the part of the teacher may result in more positive attitudinal
beliefs about language minority students (Flores & Smith, 2008). It may prove useful to
determine how teachers’ attitudinal beliefs about cultural and linguistic diversity—
specifically EL students—influence classroom practices and implementation of culturally
responsive pedagogies.
We still need to know what teachers of EL students are doing in their classrooms,
specifically. It may be important to know if teachers are doing what they think they are
doing (i.e. are able to describe and/or identify their pedagogical practices). As
Cunningham et al. (2009) found, there is often a mismatch between what teachers say
66
they are doing—instructional practices—and how they actually spend their time—
instructional minutes. We need to be able do more than describe teacher practices and
characteristics; we need to be able to measure them as well. Although the LATS-R
survey used in Flores and Smith’s (2008) study relied on the self-report of respondents
and was used with a convenience sample (N=531, 70% response rate), the information
gained is important, as there was a strong significant alpha reliability (α= 0.81, p < 0.001)
for the LATS-R.
If widespread implementation of culturally responsive teaching practices is to be
studied more broadly in schools and districts, we need to know what teachers think and
say about culturally responsive teaching practices and to what extent they use these
practices. Knowing teachers’ beliefs about cultural and linguistic diversity, including
views about working with EL students, as well having a systematic way to compare
observed teachers’ classroom practices with their self-reported practices and may be
useful for informing professional development for teachers, for evaluating the effects of
such professional development, and to evaluate teachers’ implementation of newly
acquired information.
Currently available are the LATS-R—a self-reported teacher survey—to assess
teachers’ attitudinal beliefs about cultural and linguistic diversity, the SPC rubric to
document how teachers implement the Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy, and The
SIOP Protocol to evaluate teachers implementing The SIOP model. Additionally, Lucas
et al. (2009) expanded their framework on developing culturally responsive teachers
(Villegas & Lucas, 2002) such that it may be possible to design a classroom observation
protocol for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of their model. Little is known
67
about the pedagogical practices that teachers of EL students currently employ in their
classrooms. We do not know what teachers of EL students know about educating them
nor do we know much about teachers’ views on cultural and linguistic diversity. We do
not know the degree to which such views affect teachers’ instructional practices.
Effective teacher professional development for early childhood educators that
trains them to become more adept at using culturally responsive teaching practices with
EL students is needed. Ultimately, not enough is known about the extent to which
teachers implement culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices; how
professional development on culturally responsive teaching practices influences and
alters teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and instructional practices; and what this would look
like in urban setting with early childhood educators working with young ELs.
The Study and Research Design
Currently, there is no research documenting early childhood teachers’ beliefs,
knowledge and practices with respect to culturally responsive pedagogies and teaching
ELs within an urban preschool setting. Furthermore, little is known about teacher
professional development that is both culturally and linguistically responsive in nature
and also focused on training teachers to use culturally and linguistically responsive
teaching practices. Hence, the purpose of this study was to add to the body of research
on culturally responsive professional development for teachers working with ELs.
68
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Rationale for Methodology
This research focuses on early childhood teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and
practices and how these change over time as a result of directed professional
development. Specifically, it examines teachers’ views and experiences with culturally
responsive pedagogy and how teachers relate to, understand, and might use the same to
provide effective instruction to the young ELs in their charge. Case study research
design naturally fits both the nature of the topic and the research questions. Culturally
responsive pedagogy is undergirded by sociocultural and social constructivist theories of
teaching and learning. Because the teaching and learning of adults and children is
situated within a social and deeply contextualized setting, the chosen research design
lends itself to these factors. For example, providing services to families within the
context of early childhood education, the variability of service providers and
programmatic differences requires a research design that is flexible.
Using case study research design is helpful for gaining a specific and localized
understanding of what teachers know and are experiencing within the context of the early
childhood education center in which they work—a naturalistic setting. In addition, case
study research design accommodates an interest in studying teachers in their school
setting and in their classroom, allowing for a better understanding of teacher responses
to culturally responsive coaching and professional development activities. Case study
builds in time specifications, creating the opportunity to evaluate how the professional
development intervention influences teachers’ instructional practices over time. Thus,
case study research design is most appropriate because the work of teachers is socially
69
mediated and context-dependent and because the aim here is to bind the cases together
within time and space (Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1999).
Through individual teacher surveys, focus groups and/or individual interviews,
professional development sessions, and classroom observations, the research provides
deep insight into how these teachers used what they learned from the professional
development to address the culturally and linguistically diverse and/or EL students in
their classrooms. This was an opportunity to learn directly from teachers regarding their
strengths, resources, successes and challenges as they address the academic needs of their
EL students. The multiple-case study assembles the teachers’ thoughts and ideas around
the professional development they received; specifically whether or not teachers
perceived that the culturally responsive professional development intervention improved
their ability to work with the young ELs and their families.
Research Design
As mentioned above, this multiple case intervention study was based on a
sociocultural theoretical framework drawing on research on culturally responsive
pedagogy to specifically address the academic, cultural and linguistic learning needs of
young EL students. The study incorporates teacher mentoring and coaching and uses on-
going support as an integral component of professional development. Walqui (2011)
recently documented the joint efforts of the Teacher Development Program at WestEd
and the New York Department of Education to provide a description of the theoretical
framework that guided the development of the socioculturally based professional
development model used therein. WestEd’s Apprenticeship model of professional
development reflected best-practices which were similarly applied in the current study.
70
Individual teachers were the unit of analysis and served as the multiple cases. Of course,
teachers do not work in a vacuum—they are situated within a local school context; that
context, in addition to the study period, binds the cases (Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1999).
The purpose of the study was to determine how teachers’ instructional practices changed
over time with exposure to a highly individualized professional development
intervention. The study answers the following research questions:
1. What are early childhood teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices with
respect to teaching English Learners (ELs)?
2. How do early childhood teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and practices change
over time with culturally responsive professional development addressing
culturally responsive teaching practices?
Participants and Setting
The study participants were fifteen early childhood educators: five lead teachers
and ten assistants. Each classroom consisted of a clustered team which included one lead
teacher and two assistants. As mentioned previously, the teachers were the focal point of
the study. The research site—a Los Angeles area early childhood center—is located in a
low-socioeconomic (SES) Latino neighborhood and has high EL enrollment. The Little
Preschool
2
(LP) provides childcare services for children aged from six week to five years
old, with the maximum capacity of 82 children. All teachers and assistants identified as
Latino and are bilingual in English and Spanish. All teachers and assistants met the
minimum course-unit requirement or held the appropriate early childhood certificate
required by California. Only one teacher had earned an associate’s degree in child
development. All teachers and assistants were female, with the exception of one male

2
Pseudonym.
71
teacher’s assistant. Age among the staff ranged widely from early twenties to mid-fifties.
All teachers had more than six years experience; assistants’ experience ranged between
one and ten years. Generally, the personnel enjoyed a strong rapport with the parents and
the community as well as with each other and the site administrator. Table 4 (Appendix)
summarizes these characteristics.
Intervention Approach
The professional development intervention model followed best practices and is
supported by research (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Darling-Hammond & Mclaughlin,
1995; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008; Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, & Thornburg, 2009).
According to Palardy and Rumberger (2008), effective professional development is
sustained, concentrates on improving instruction, provides active learning opportunities,
and is done in an interactive environment between teachers with regular feedback. The
professional development intervention for the current study incorporated these
characteristics. What makes the intervention approach used in this study unique is that
the professional development itself was culturally and linguistically responsive to the
teachers’ needs. In other words, both approach content were culturally responsive (Table
5, Appendix).
Specifically, one way to model cultural and linguistic responsiveness was to
design the professional development training sessions to draw on teachers’ own funds of
knowledge, such as family histories, cultural experiences, language resources, and
professional expertise. Taking this approach to professional development, the author
modeled what teachers would be expected to do with the children and their families. By
drawing on teachers’ experiential backgrounds, the professional development was
72
customized to concentrate on issues they raised (e.g. brainstorming relevant, age-
appropriate activities that interested the children, involving children’s families, becoming
resourceful about materials used for class activities, incorporating more early literacy
activities, and supporting second language learners).
Instead of conventional teacher training that consists of one-time meetings or all-
day workshops, teachers were provided with support on a sustained basis throughout the
duration of the study. Teachers actively participated during professional development
sessions, giving and receiving feedback, which is an essential component of learning
activities focused on improving instruction. The training followed a three-pronged
approach that included interactive and individualized trainings, lesson-planning sessions,
and in-class support. The intervention, and hence the data collection stage, ran for
approximately about six months. Each component of the intervention is discussed below.
A comprehensive account regarding the content and approach of professional
development intervention is available in the Appendix.
Individualized professional development (PD) trainings. The researcher
engaged teachers in ten customized mini-lessons that reflected the purpose of the
intervention. Teachers identified their needs during pre- and mid-intervention focus
groups. The administrator at the early childhood center also provided input. All sessions
included warm-up activities designed to draw on teacher’s prior knowledge and modeled
the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. The training was developed to help
these early childhood educators work with very young ELs and specifically addressed
emergent literacy. Training session topics included culturally responsive teaching
practices (Villegas & Lucas, 2002); funds of knowledge and making home to school
73
connections (Moll et al., 2005); incorporating family and cultural practices into the
classroom; essential principles about second language learning critical for working with
ELs and using effective scaffolding techniques (Lucas et al., 2008); and early language
and literacy development, focusing on all four literacy domains (listening, speaking, and
emergent reading and writing). Teachers were guided through an inquiry process
designed to help them more fully engage their students, families, and the local
community. Teachers, with the author’s guidance and assistance, developed customized
home surveys for the children’s families and also distributed disposable cameras for
families to use. Through this adapted family inventory project (Moll et al., 2005) teachers
drew more deeply on students’ cultural and linguistic strengths, prior knowledge and
experiences, and family and community resources that enabled them to provide culturally
and linguistically responsive instruction. Table 6 (Appendix) presents the professional
development trainings provided during the intervention.
Individualized lesson-planning sessions. In addition to professional
development trainings, teachers also received six individual lesson planning sessions,
with the author taking the role of facilitator. During this time, training content was
discussed and lesson plans were developed to address student learning needs and
incorporate teachers’ learning from previous trainings. The lesson-planning sessions
were an opportunity for teachers to think and reflect on their lesson and activity planning
as well to ask questions about planning age-appropriate and focused activities that
address specific learning objectives.
Individualized in-classroom teacher support. To tie together the individualized
trainings and lesson-planning sessions, the author also provided on-going in-class support
74
primarily focused on helping the teacher implement previously planned activities. The
author aided the teacher in executing activities (sometimes modeling instruction),
provided materials and resources for activities, worked with the children as well as the
teachers’ assistants, and provided individual feedback to the teachers, often asking
reflective questions. The author met individually with teachers for lesson-planning
sessions and provided in-class support for classrooms, working closely with teachers and
assistants throughout the study.
Data Sources and Measures
Multiple sources provided data on teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices to
determine the effectiveness of the professional development intervention in changing
teachers’ instructional practices. The majority of the data came from the intervention
itself—the variety of professional development activities such as individual trainings,
lesson-planning sessions, and in-classroom teacher support provided. All of these
interactions were audio-recorded to document teachers’ change during the study period.
The researcher also engaged in reflective note-taking after the sessions. Audio-recordings
of these sessions were transcribed and analyzed. Furthermore, teachers’ submitted lesson
plans and photos of completed projects were collected, catalogued and analyzed. In
addition to the data derived from the intervention itself, some data was gathered only at
specific time intervals—pre-intervention, mid-intervention, and post-intervention. The
tools for this data collection include a language attitudes survey, focus groups and/or
interviews, and classroom observations. The measures used to evaluate these are
described below.
75
Language attitudes survey. To gain a general understanding of teachers’
attitudes and beliefs about culturally and linguistic diversity and ELs, participants were
asked to complete Flores and Smith’s (2008) revised version of the Language Attitudes
of Teachers Scale (LATS-R). At this time, the LATS-R is the only standardized measure
available for assessing teachers’ attitudes toward cultural and linguistic diversity. The
LATS-R measures four constructs: Rights and Privileges (of speakers of minority
languages), Aesthetic Caring (of speakers of minority languages),
Assimiliationist/Exclusion, and Responsibility/Culpability (Flores & Smith, 2008).
Having a baseline assessment of language attitudes provides insight into how receptive a
teacher would be to the professional development training sessions on culturally
responsive teaching practices. Table 3 presents a copy of the LATS-R (Appendix).
Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Pre-intervention focus groups
informed professional development planning and provided insight pertaining to teachers’
perceptions of and knowledge about culturally responsive teaching practices and working
with ELs. Mid-intervention focus groups asked questions similar to the initial interviews
and incorporated specific questions pertaining to the topics and activities covered in
professional development sessions at that point. Post-intervention interviews provided a
more complete picture of how teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices changed as a
result of the professional development intervention on culturally responsive teaching
practices. The exit interview asked questions requiring teachers to think back and reflect
on the professional development intervention activities over the course of the study. All
interview protocols were closely aligned, to the extent possible, with the topics covered
in professional development sessions to serve as an assessment of teacher learning of the
76
professional development material. Furthermore, information gleaned from all
interviews provided potentially useful feedback for improving the professional
development intervention. These interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, analyzed
and coded. The appendix provides all study interview protocols used.
Classroom observation protocol. A classroom observation protocol served
multiple functions. The protocol provided space to draw a physical map of the classroom,
a section to count specific teacher behaviors and/or actions consistent with culturally
responsive teaching practices, and a large area for writing structured field notes.
Structured field notes provided rich descriptive data of teachers’ instructional practices,
and provided context for the observed teacher actions or behavior. Furthermore, the field
notes and observation protocols served to triangulate data during the analysis stage of the
project. Table 7 provides the classroom observation protocol and Table 8 presents the
worksheet used to count the codes on the classroom observations (Appendix).
Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices Continuum. Early themes became
prominent through preliminary analysis of pre-intervention teacher focus group transcript
data, These themes served as the basis for creating a unique continuum that captured the
shifts in teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices as evidenced through subsequent
teacher focus groups, exit interviews, and classroom observations. The Culturally
Responsive Teaching Practice Continuum has five dimensions: culture as a context for
learning; authentic home-to-school connection; using culturally responsive teaching
practices to improve instruction; incorporating family literacy practices; teacher agency,
expertise, and self-efficacy. These dimensions are rooted in the body of literature
previously reviewed. The five dimensions served as the basis for developing the
77
professional development training topics as well as the semi-structured interview
protocols. In other words, it was clear from the research on culturally responsive
pedagogies, early childhood literacy, and teacher professional development that issues
pertaining to cultural understandings, the school-home relationship, the use of culturally
responsive teaching practices, and discussing early literacy practices within the home
would figure prominently and would need to be addressed directly in the professional
development intervention activities. Furthermore, the fifth dimension about teacher
agency, expertise, and self-efficacy emerged from working with the teachers and became
immediately evident during pre-intervention teacher focus groups. The continuum served
as a holistic measure to document teacher growth and change over time through
professional development intervention activities. Teachers were scored across all five
dimensions on the continuum before participating in the professional development
intervention and again after data collection at the end of the study period. The salient
themes are discussed fully in the following chapter. Table 9 provides the Culturally
Responsive Teaching Practices Continuum (Appendix).
Data Collection Procedures
Pre-intervention. The researcher met with the teachers at the beginning of the
study and before they participated in any professional development activities. The
meeting helped the researcher get to know the teachers and discuss the goal of the
professional development intervention. This introductory meeting also served as an
opportunity for teachers to ask questions, raise concerns, and speak frankly. The study
purposes were explained and teachers were informed that their participation was
voluntary and they were not under any obligation to participate. This was done in
78
accordance with the teachers’ individual language preferences. All teachers and the
administrator were given the opportunity to decide whether or not they would agree to
participate in the study. All teachers and the administrator agreed to participate, signed an
informed consent document and received a copy. Again, teachers’ expressed language
preferences were observed and each received forms in either English or Spanish. Once
the forms were completed and signed, pre-intervention classroom observations were
scheduled and conducted.
The classroom observations employed a uniquely designed classroom observation
protocol on which structured field notes were handwritten. After teachers were observed,
they completed the LATS-R. In an effort to be flexible with teachers’ time and
scheduling, teachers were paired in pre-intervention focus groups.
The order of events ensured that teachers were not persuaded to modify their
usual instructional routines on the basis of the pre-intervention focus group and so that
pre-intervention practices were documented accurately. After the initial administrator
interview and teacher focus groups, the researcher analyzed and coded the data for
emergent themes. In an effort to provide responsive professional development for
teachers, the researcher also compiled a list of issues, concerns, needs, and/or interests
that the administrator and teachers signaled during interview and focus groups and
ensured these items were incorporated into the professional development training
sessions. The initial feedback gathered from the administrator and teachers was used to
better customize the professional development training sessions that teachers eventually
received. Data obtained from the initial classroom observations, the LATS-R (survey),
and the initial interviews served as the baseline data for teachers. Later classroom
79
observation data was compared to baseline data. To ensure data collection procedures
were feasible and measures were appropriate for the study—especially with respect to the
focus groups/interviews and classroom observations—all items were tested beforehand
with other researchers. After all pre-intervention data was collected the researcher
developed and scored each teacher on the Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices
Continuum.
During intervention. To respect teachers’ time and to not overwhelm or
encroach on their space, the study followed a monthly plan in which two professional
development sessions, one lesson-planning session and one in-classroom support session
were completed within three weeks. The last week of the month was used to make up any
missed sessions. Each teacher participated in ten (10) individual PD sessions and six (6)
individual lesson-planning sessions. All of these sessions were audio-recorded.
Furthermore, each received monthly individual in-classroom support sessions, lasting
approximately three hours per session. When possible, specific segments of large and/or
small group lessons were audio-recorded when lessons included activities that were
developed during lesson-planning sessions. Teachers received feedback informally
during in-classroom support sessions. Thus, the bulk of the data gathered during the
intervention consisted of the audio-recordings from the actual professional development
activities. These audio-recordings were transcribed, analyzed, and coded.
Another source of data gathered during the intervention were artifacts such as
copies of the lesson plans resulting from researcher-teacher collaborative lesson planning
sessions, completed home-surveys that teachers developed (with the researcher’s
80
assistance), and photographs of teacher-generated classroom projects. These artifacts
were dated, organized, collected, analyzed and stored.
In addition to the individual professional development activities, the researcher
conducted a second round of classroom observations with each teacher at the midpoint of
the study (mid-intervention classroom observation). After the second round of classroom
observations, teachers gathered once again in pairs (same groupings as pre-intervention
focus groups) to talk with the researcher a second time for mid-intervention teacher focus
groups. During these focus groups, teachers were asked questions comparable to the ones
asked during the pre-intervention sessions. The researcher reminded teachers of their
previous responses in efforts to solicit reflection and to determine whether or not teachers
noticed any changes in their own beliefs, knowledge, and practices. During the mid-
intervention focus groups, teachers’ provided candid feedback with respect to the
professional development intervention activities. Teacher feedback was given serious
consideration, and to the degree possible, was rapidly implemented. As a result of
teachers’ frankness and comfort expressing opinions, the content and approach of the PD
session topics were modified to better adapt to teachers’ expressed needs and concerns
and to clarify key aspects of the culturally responsive teaching practices. Again, these
teacher focus groups were audio-recorded and conducted in accordance to teachers’
language preferences (English or Spanish). The audio-recordings were transcribed,
analyzed, and coded.
Post-intervention. The final round of formal classroom observations were
conducted after all professional development intervention activities were completed—
individual professional development training, lesson-planning, and in-classroom support
81
sessions. As with the two previous rounds, a formal classroom observation protocol was
used on which structured field notes were recorded by hand. After post-intervention,
classroom observations were conducted, and the LATS-R was administered to all
teachers and assistants as a post-intervention measure. Thus, there were pre- and post-
intervention surveys for five teachers and ten assistants, not counting three assistants who
left LP before the completion of the study. Two assistants were laid-off and another
voluntarily resigned.
After six months of intense professional development, the researcher had
developed rapport and a strong working relationship with the staff at LP. On the basis of
the trust and camaraderie established over time, the researcher opted to change the format
from teacher focus groups to individual exit interviews at the post-intervention mark in
the study. These interviews provided the maximum amount of time and provided the
space to reflect on their experiences privately with the researcher. The researcher also
met with the site administrator for a post-intervention interview, providing the
opportunity for the administrator to reflect on the intervention study from beginning to
end. The exit interviews followed a similar semi-structured protocol as at all three
intervals: pre-, mid-, and post-intervention. The teachers discussed their instructional
practices, use of culturally responsive teaching practices, and experiences with the
professional development and classroom observations while the administrator offered her
opinions, reflections and observations. These exit interviews were audio-recorded,
transcribed, and analyzed. As all other study activities, post-intervention interviews were
conducted according to the participants’ language preferences. The sets of three
interviews per teacher—as well as pre- and post-intervention administrator interviews--
82
provided a rich source of qualitative data. Lastly, after all post-intervention data was
collected the researcher scored each teacher on the Culturally Responsive Teaching
Practices Continuum a second time. Table 8 summarizes the data sources, measures
used, administration of measures, and purpose served by data collection procedures for
the study (Appendix).
Data Analysis
According to Creswell (2007), data collection for qualitative inquiry resembles a
“circle” of activities: locating a site or individuals; gaining access and making rapport;
sampling purposefully; exploring field issues; recording information; and storing data.
The unit of analysis for this case study is the teacher. However, because they are situated
within a specific school context, factors such as school culture, policies, and
idiosyncrasies cannot be readily divorced from the findings. The rich data obtained from
the teacher surveys, focus groups and interviews, professional development sessions,
lesson planning sessions, and in-classroom support days served as basis for the case
study. The research methodology employed is outlined below (Stake, 1999).
Specific codes emerged from transcript data and a similar code list was used in
analyzing field notes. Field notes were coded using these categories and rich text was
pulled from the data for direct interpretation (Stake, 1999). After coding transcriptions of
interviews and individual sessions with the appropriate codes, the codes were categorized
into larger themes, consistent with Stake’s (1999) use of categorical aggregation.
Furthermore, to determine if data gathered during interviews and classroom observations
classrooms were consistent with previous research and theory, the data were compared to
the literature. The study findings are presented in chapter four. Discussion of how the
83
study findings relate to the body of literature in the field is provided in chapter five.
Table 14 provides a list of the themes, categories and codes (Appendix).
Answering the Study Research Questions
The following section discusses how the data was analyzed to establish a baseline
and how information that was subsequently collected served as change data. Baseline
data was compared to change data for each teacher and across all teachers. Thus, multiple
sources of data were compiled and analyzed both individually and jointly to answer the
study’s research questions. Table 11 summarizes the data according to research question
(Appendix).
Baseline data. The first research question seeks to understand teachers’ beliefs,
knowledge, and practices with respect to teaching English learners (ELs). Answering this
research questions required collecting and analyzing pre-intervention data to serve as a
baseline. Before determining whether or not changes in teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and
practices occurred, it is necessary to know where teachers started. Thus, various
measures, previously discussed, were used to gather preliminary data. The following
sources of data were gathered at the outset of the study to gain a detailed understanding
of teachers before the professional development intervention: data from the LATS-R
Teacher Survey (self-reported beliefs and attitudes toward ELs); transcript data from pre-
intervention teacher focus groups (self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and practices); and
data from pre-intervention classroom observation protocol, including structured field
notes (observed practices).
Analysis of baseline data. The task of analysis was to gain a broad perspective of
each teacher’s stated beliefs, knowledge, and practices through documented responses to
84
open-ended questions during the focus groups as well as to analyze teachers’ structured
responses to a survey designed to assess teachers’ views and dispositions toward cultural
and linguistic diversity and working with EL students. Furthermore, teachers’
instructional practices were documented during the pre-intervention classroom
observation. By documenting teachers’ pre-intervention beliefs, knowledge, and practices
in a variety of ways before proceeding with professional development intervention
activities, it was possible to compare multiple sources of baseline data for each teacher
and across all teachers.
Change data. It was necessary to collect more data to answer the second
research question about how teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices changed over
time with culturally responsive professional development and coaching practices. Not
only was more data required, data that was similar was required so that accurate
comparisons could be made across multiple data points. The same types of measures
were used for all teachers and all information was gathered as uniformly as possible.
Thus, similar questions were asked at pre- and mid-intervention teacher focus groups and
exit interviews at post-intervention data collection. The data from these three time points
were compared for each teacher and classroom observation data was compared across the
three time points for each teacher.
Analysis of change data. In order to determine changes among teachers’ beliefs,
knowledge, and practices over time, data from multiple points in time were compared—
pre- mid-, and post-intervention. It was also important to determine whether or not there
were patterns and trends linked to the professional development intervention activities. It
was not possible to strictly establish a causal relationship between the intervention and
85
the changes in teachers’ practices. However, by documenting both the nature of the
professional development intervention activities as well as the changes in teachers’
beliefs a knowledge (self-reported) and practices (observed), it was possible to provide a
highly contextualized descriptive account of the process of providing culturally
responsive professional development and documenting the responses of the study
participants over time.
Specifically, in analyzing the various data, it was important to determine the
patterns and trends in the data over time and for each teacher; whether the changes
observed correspond with specific material covered during the professional development
intervention activities (training, lesson-planning or in-classroom support sessions); and
whether teachers’ stated beliefs, knowledge and practices as well as observed behaviors
in the classroom converge or diverge over time. In other words, to answer the second
research questions about change over time, it was critical to determine whether change
was observed in either what teachers said and/or did over time and whether teachers’
stated beliefs and observed practices were aligned at any point in time.
Triangulation of the Data
The multiple sources of data described above were compared to each other at
various time points: pre-, mid- and post-intervention. Comparison of teachers’ stated
beliefs and knowledge with their observed instructional practices in the classroom
yielded patterns and themes to facilitate exploration of the impact of the professional
development intervention. To make use of the rich data collected, it was important to
examine the available evidence that would suggest the teacher integrated the information
gathered from family inventories into her instructional practice and/or the students’
86
learning experience. Furthermore, it was important to explore the evidence from the
teacher and/or classroom that might have suggested that teachers tapped into community
resources (e.g. parents’ skills, talents, and time) to enhance instructional practice and/or
student learning. To determine whether teachers made use of the information presented
during professional development intervention activities—especially after teachers
engaged parents in the family inventory project —it was crucial to determine whether the
teacher introduced new topics for lessons, planned relevant fieldtrips or experiences,
and/or secured local community members and/or parents to visit the class to share
knowledge and provide a demonstration lesson. Given the importance of understanding
second language learning principles when working with EL students and that these were
discussed during professional development training sessions, it was critical to examine
evidence from teachers and/or their classrooms indicating whether the teacher understood
the new information and was incorporating it. In effect, it was essential to document the
degree to which teachers incorporate culturally responsive teaching practices since
learning about them via the professional development intervention activities, and to
determine how teachers’ changes in beliefs, knowledge, and practices were related to
their experiences with these.
In addition to comparing the multiple sources of data to produce a coherent
narrative for each teacher, the data was compared across the teachers. Each teacher
represented a case within the multiple case study; the school and administrator served as
the localized context for all the cases. Since teachers are individuals and respond to
stimuli (e.g. the professional development intervention, the researcher, etc.) in varying
ways, a cross-case analysis of all teacher cases was conducted. Through the cross-case
87
analysis, it became evident that, though teachers are unique individuals, there were some
responses to the professional development intervention that applied to all the cases. In
sum, by comparing all data sources at varying time points for each teacher and across all
teachers, it was possible to triangulate data and gain a rich perspective on individual
cases as well as the overall intervention. Tables 10 and 11 summarize data collected and
used to answer the research questions (Appendix).
Trustworthiness
Data from teacher focus group and exit interviews, professional development
trainings and lesson planning sessions, classroom observation field notes, and time spent
in the classroom directly supporting teachers are more subjective in nature due to the fact
that the author was the primary data collector. Therefore, ensuring the integrity of the
qualitative data requires measures of trustworthiness. In line with the research
methodology—case study—employed in this study, there are three main ways in which
trustworthiness was achieved: data triangulation; prolonged engagement; and peer
debriefings among the research team
3
.
Data triangulation. Data triangulation is important for gathering rich data from
which to build multiple cases and provide descriptive narrative of the context of the case
study. In addition, data triangulation is a key feature of case study research. The various
forms of data and their triangulation are discussed in detail in the previous section.
Prolonged engagement. Prolonged engagement is also a feature of case study
research design. Being in the field of research over the predetermined time period of six

3
The author was assisted by two graduate students with some aspects of data collection (e.g. classroom
observations and scoring of classroom observation protocols and some teacher focus groups) and with the
professional development intervention activities (e.g. assistance with professional development design and
delivery of some training content to teachers). Two researchers with detailed knowledge of the research
project provided assistance with respect to methodological questions.
88
months and interacting with the study participants on a near-daily basis provides intensity
as well as prolonged engagement. Working closely with the teachers over six months
provides confidence that the data collected is an accurate reflection of the context of the
study and its participants.
Peer debriefings. The basis of analysis and interpretation is well-founded on
rich data collected from various sources at multiple time points. To that aim, it was
important to consult outside researchers knowledgeable about qualitative methods
throughout the data analysis and interpretation stages of the study. Because data has the
potential to be interpreted in many ways, it was both prudent and necessary to check
interpretations against those of other researchers who are familiar with the research and
literature.
Chapter Summary
Using case study research design was not only appropriate for the study, but it
was the best choice for answering the study’s two interrelated research questions.
Fundamentally, the purpose of the study was to understand early childhood teachers’
beliefs, knowledge and practices with respect to the EL children in their classrooms and
to determine how these change over time with culturally responsive coaching and
professional development. All measures used and all data collected were selected for
suitability and ability to provide evidence to answer the research questions. The data
collection procedures detailed in previous sections of this chapter ensure that the data
gathered was not compromised and accurately depicted the professional development
intervention over the six-month study period. The data analysis methods and forms of
data triangulation used ensure the interpretation of the data was reasonable in its
89
reflection of the data and relates to current research. The next chapter provides a detailed
account of the results based on the data collected, compiled, and analyzed.

90
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings from the multiple cases of this descriptive study
on a uniquely designed teacher professional development intervention. Five individual
teachers served as the cases. Because each classroom at the research site was composed
of one lead teacher and two teacher assistants, each case draws on information gathered
about and from the assistants corresponding to each lead classroom teacher. Given the
sociocultural and social constructivist framework which frames this study, it is
acknowledged that teachers do not work individually and/or in a vacuum. Teachers and
students engage each other in a specific situational learning context. As such, the natural
setting for this case study is the school and the classrooms within. Furthermore, this case
study is bound by space—a specific school site within a particular community—and
time, a six-month intervention period.
This chapter is structured to answer the study’s research questions. Each case is
presented in two parts: a) teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and practices with respect to ELs;
and b) change in teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and practices over time with culturally
responsive professional development about culturally responsive teaching practices. This
chapter begins with a descriptive account of the school context. Next, the five individual
teacher cases are presented. Lastly, a careful cross-case analysis is provided in which
similarities and differences across the teachers are examined and the emergent unifying
themes of the multiple cases are expounded.
While not included in this chapter, a descriptive account of the process of
developing and providing the culturally responsive professional development is provided
in the Appendix. Understanding the approach and content of the professional
91
development intervention provides additional context for making sense of how it was
shaped in relation to the teachers in the study.
The Local School Context
The Little Preschool (LP) is an early childhood center located in a low-SES
neighborhood in Los Angeles, California. The surrounding community is predominantly
Latino, with a high proportion of Spanish-speakers immigrant families. However, the
community is also racially/ethnically and linguistically diverse, as it experiencing
gentrification with recent revitalization efforts. A nearby hospital is major source of
employment for the community, employing some of the parents whose children are
enrolled at the early childhood education center. LP is centrally located in the
neighborhood, providing it with exposure to wide range of grass-roots businesses and
access to a variety of public space and localized government entities. LP is managed by
a large non-profit organization that enjoys good standing with the community; it is also
supported by federal government funding. LP is unmistakably present, highly visible, and
audibly bubbling with energy even from the street level.
The buildings that house LP are relatively new and spacious. The large windows
throughout the facility allow natural light to penetrate and illuminate the main office as
well as the classrooms in which much of the children’s artwork is brightly displayed.
Upon entering the main office, one is greeted and warmly welcomed into a neat and
orderly waiting area. It is immediately clear that LP is staffed with friendly and caring
personnel. The LP campus grounds are maintained impeccably year-round. The large
outdoor playgrounds designated for the children’s use are equally well-groomed. A
variety of age-appropriate toys and equipment are made available for the children to
92
explore. On most sunny Los Angeles mornings, the blue sky shines vibrantly and the
laughter and delight of children running and playing is carried upward as the aroma of
freshly cut emerald green grass wafts through air.
The curriculum offered at LP meets California state standards and is aligned with
the federal government’s guidelines. In addition, LP enjoys national accreditation from
the National Association of Education of Young Children (NAEYC). All teachers and
assistants meet minimum state certification standards, were bilingual in Spanish and
English, and demonstrated a caring disposition toward working with the young children
and their families. The local administrator was demonstrably enthusiastic about working
with the staff and the families that LP serves. The administrator had significant teaching
and professional experience. She enjoyed support both from the operating organizational
management as well as open communication with teachers, assistants, and support staff.
Over time, the administrator shared her ideas and vision for LP with increasing
candidness, expressing a sense of possibility for the school and staff as whole, as well as
the families the school serves. Most of the teachers and assistants working at LP had
been there for many years and had watched several families expand as the children grew
up and moved through the classrooms. The teacher and assistants generally shared a
strong rapport with the community and parents, among each other as colleagues, as well
as with the LP’s administrator and the auxiliary support staff (i.e. office receptionist,
grounds custodian, mealtime cook). LP staff enjoyed the occasional camaraderie with
colleagues from other schools who also belong to the same network of sites, as they share
management.
93
Due to major downward shifts in the economy in recent years, LP along with its
sister schools, faced major difficulties in maintaining the site adequately staffed as the
parent management organization handles dwindling financial support. At the onset of the
project, LP lacked a permanent teacher for one classroom, an assistant for another
classroom, and yet another classroom operated with a substitute on a daily basis, as the
assigned assistant was away due to a long-term illness. These chronic problems created
some instability, including high teacher absenteeism at LP. The effect was a deflated
morale from the outset of the study. In the first couple of months, the project operated
with a sense of fragility looming over the intervention as teachers and assistants worried
about the security of their employment. Furthermore, as some teacher assistants were
eventually laid off, employees with more seniority at network schools were brought on
staff and LP went through personnel realignment—assistants were reassigned to teachers.
This reorganization occurred halfway through the study. While the reassignment of
employees to LP was a top-down organizational mandate, the realignment of the
assistants at LP was a local management decision. Although the decision was supported
and approved by higher management, the change was not immediately embraced on-site
and, thus was met with some initial reticence and hesitation.
The Five Teacher Cases
The following five cases represent the full range of experiences of the lead
teachers at LP. For ease of reading and to maintain organization, each case is presented
in two sub-sections. The first part of each case uses baseline data collected to establish
the starting point for each teacher’s beliefs, knowledge, and practices which were either
self-reported by the teacher or observed by the author. The second part documents the
94
changes in a given teacher’s beliefs, knowledge, and practices over time. Part one for
each case relies on the pre-intervention data collected: one formally documented pre-
intervention classroom observation per teacher; a language attitudes survey administered
to all study participants; and pre-intervention focus groups. The second part is based on
data subsequently collected directly from professional development related-activities, as
well as separate mid-intervention classroom observations and teacher focus groups. Post-
intervention data is also included: a third classroom observation, individual exit teacher
interviews, and a second administration of the language attitudes survey.
Case One: The Pre-K Teacher, Sarah
4

Meet Sarah. Sarah is a middle-aged woman who emigrated from Mexico over
thirty years ago. She has three adult children and boasts of her grandchild. When her
children grew up and left home, Sarah decided to go back to school to become a
preschool teacher. Sarah has been a teacher at LP for over ten years and enjoys a strong
rapport with the families in the local community. She and her husband make yearly visits
to their hometown during the month of August, when they take a three to four week
summer vacation. On those trips, Sarah often thinks of her students waiting for her in Los
Angeles, California. Each year, she carefully selects a couple of cultural artifacts to bring
back not as souvenirs, but to serve as educational tools for the children in her classroom.
This year she returned with two miniature mollinos (Mexican chocolate whisks) and
tortilladoras (Mexican tortilla presses). Sarah enjoys sharing her cultural heritage with
her students, as many of her students share her cultural background.

4
Henceforth, all study participants’ names have been changed to protect their identity.
95
Sarah’s pre-intervention beliefs and knowledge. Sarah openly expressed her
views on various occasions. She is proud of her cultural heritage, and thinks it is
important to inculcate her students with an appreciation for their cultural heritage:
…[A] mí me gusta mucho enfocarme mucho en mi cultura latina y enseñarle a los
niños en fechas que pasan, las fechas, porque la mayoría de los niños, de mis
alumnos son latinos y tengo también niños que hablan inglés.
…I really like to focus on my Latino culture and teach the children on those
holidays that occur, the holidays, because the majority of the children, of my
students, are Latino and I also have children who speak English.
Sarah makes a point of supporting the children’s home culture and language. The home
language of all the children in Sarah’s class is Spanish. These children are exposed to
English instruction for the first time at LP. In other words, the majority of Sarah’s young
students are English learners (ELs). While Sarah speaks some English, she is most
comfortable speaking Spanish. While there were built-in times during her instruction
when English was used exclusively, the predominant language of the classroom was
Spanish. Nevertheless, language use was highly flexible in Sarah’s classroom. The
children communicated in their language of preference with adults and/or other children.
For example, some children responded to questions or participated in the class discussion
in the language they favored rather than the language that was being used to facilitate the
discussion. Furthermore, language preferences were also expressed during indoor
independent work time and outdoor free play. Sarah’s language preference was Spanish;
all professional development intervention activities with her were conducted in Spanish.
Sarah’s pre-intervention attitudes towards language and cultural diversity.
There are seventeen items on the LATS-R with the highest possible composite score of
53. A high composite score indicates unfavorable or negative attitudes and dispositions
toward language and cultural diversity and working with English learners (ELs). A lower
96
composite score indicates favorable or more positive attitudes and dispositions. The
items on the LATS-R are grouped into the four measured constructs: Rights and
Privileges; Assimiliationist/Exclusion; Responsibility/Culpability; and Aesthetic Caring.
The item statements related to Aesthetic Caring were reverse coded, as these items are
stated in a manner that affirms cultural and linguistic diversity. The other items were
worded to indicate negative attitudes and dispositions towards cultural and linguistic
diversity and working with EL students. Table 3 presents all items on the LATS-R
(Appendix).
Sarah’s pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was 41and indicates that Sarah
may hold negative views and dispositions toward cultural and linguistic diversity and
working with EL students. For example, even though Sarah’s pre-kindergarten class was
comprised entirely of ELs whose parents speak little to no English, she indicated strong
agreement with statements such as “Parents of ELLs should be counseled to speak
English with their kids whenever possible” and “At school, the learning of the English
language by non- or limited-English-proficient students takes precedence.” Agreement
with these statements may seem to indicate Sarah has negative views toward cultural and
linguistic diversity. However, when the composite scores are collapsed by construct,
Sarah’s scores indicate high favorability toward meeting the cultural and linguistic needs
of ELs. This is consistent with her observed teaching practices; she instructed primarily
in Spanish and chose to receive her professional development in Spanish as well. Thus,
Sarah evidently held some seemingly conflicting ideas and beliefs about cultural and
linguistic diversity and working with ELs.
97
Sarah’s pre-intervention observed teaching practices. As described in the
previous chapter, teachers were observed formally in their classrooms working with
students on three separate occasions: pre-, mid-, and post-intervention. During classroom
observations, a structured classroom observation protocol was used (Appendix). The
author drew a physical representation of the classroom space and re-sketched the area at
fifteen minute intervals while observing for specific teacher behaviors and keeping a
running tally count for each discrete action executed by the teacher. A total of eighteen
codes were used; eleven paralleled closely with the four dimensions of culturally
responsive teaching practices (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) and the other seven were based
on scaffolding techniques for ELs (Lucas, Villegas & Freedson-Gonzales, 2008). Some
examples of codes are “Teacher helps children access prior knowledge,” “Teacher builds
on children’s linguistic resources” and “Purposeful activities for ELs such as: social
interaction with peers, opportunities to negotiate meaning.” In addition to keeping a
frequency count of codes, structured field notes were also taken. Classroom interactions
were handwritten and coded in real-time during the classroom observation period. Each
classroom observation lasted approximately three hours.
During Sarah’s pre-intervention classroom observation, 30 distinct instances of
discrete actions were counted. When the codes are collapsed into two broader categories
of codes—culturally responsive teaching practices or EL scaffolding—it is clear that
Sarah demonstrated far more instances of culturally responsive teaching practices, in
which 23 different actions were recorded when compared to seven recorded instances of
scaffolding for ELs . Two discrete teacher behaviors/actions were observed with the
highest frequency (6 tallies each) in Sarah’s first classroom observation: “Children
98
become more responsible for their own learning” and ‘Teacher makes the environment
and culture of classroom inclusive of all students.” Sarah’s students were observed
working independently as they explored activities of their own choosing. Furthermore, it
was clear that the EL children had material they could relate to and access independently;
from the classroom materials —such as multicultural and Spanish language books
available in the class library—to the children’s work displayed and the computer
software program available to them. It was also clear that the children’s home language,
Spanish, was affirmed and a welcomed presence. The morning meeting during the initial
classroom observation was conducted in Spanish, and serves as an example of a
culturally responsive teaching practice:
Sarah guided the students in singing rhyming songs and hand gestures. The class
sang a variety of children’s songs such as “If you’re happy and you know it” and
“Peanut Butter.” However, the last chant was a way to transition from the carpet
to the next task. The chant acknowledged all the students that were in class that
day. They would chant and clap in unison: “¿Quién vino a la escuela hoy? Quién
vino a la escuela hoy?” [Who came to school today? Who came to school today?]
Then the Sarah would call out two students’ names—one boy and girl at a time—
and they would come to the center of the carpet where the class was gathered and
would get to stomp, jump, clap, and be recognized by the class as they were
encouraged and cheered on with claps. The chanting was now personalized:
“¡Brian and Lisa
5
viniéron a la escuela hoy! ¡Brian and Lisa viniéron a la
escuela hoy! [Brian and Lisa came to school today! Brian and Lisa came to school
today!] Go wash your hands!” Once students heard the command to wash their
hands, they were to walk from the carpet to the in-classroom restrooms to wash
their hands and line up for recess outdoors.

The chant was an effective strategy for making all students feel welcome and included.
This, too, is an example of a culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practice.
While the classroom exhibited a wide range of age-appropriate and multicultural
books and materials for students, the classroom observation documented very few
instances of Sarah’s building on students’ personal and cultural strengths or instances of

5
All teachers’ and students’ names are pseudonyms.
99
scaffolding for ELs. For example, during the initial classroom observation, Sarah
conducted a small group science lesson about magnets.
Sarah: ¿Porqué pasa esto? Porque el imán tiene un lado que se pega al objeto
¿Qué paso? ¿Miran cómo se pega? ¿Porqué? Porque tiene un imán.

Sarah: Why does this happen? Because the magnet has a side that sticks to an
object. What happened? Do you see how it sticks? Why? Because it has a
magnet.

Although Sarah was sitting at kidney-shaped table with seven other students, the
conversation is not only entirely teacher-directed, the children did not use relevant
vocabulary or learn the meaning of new words or ideas. While the children seemed
genuinely interested in the magnet and object, they did not have an opportunity to make
meaning or connect vocabulary to the objects or activity’s purposes. The activity
definitely captured the children’s interest but the lesson did not engage students around
science concepts of cause and effect, activate children’s prior knowledge or give students
adequate talk-time where they could express ideas, share insights and ask questions as
oral language development. The lesson appeared to be a science exploration lesson, but,
unfortunately, the learning objective was unclear. While the activity was fun, it was an
example of a missed learning opportunity for students. This lesson had the potential to
engaging students in an instructional conversation in which the teacher asked higher-
order thinking questions and activated students’ prior knowledge. This lesson could have
been intentionally planned and executed to deliver effective instruction that is culturally
and linguistically responsive to the children’s learning needs.
Documenting Changes in Sarah’s Beliefs, Knowledge and Teacher Practices
Changes in Sarah’s beliefs and knowledge. Sarah demonstrated some changes
in her stated beliefs over time. During the pre-intervention focus group, Sarah expressed
100
views that suggested narrow conceptions of culture. When asked both at the mid-
intervention focus group (three months into the study period) if her definition and views
of culture had changed or expanded as a result of the professional development
intervention, she maintained that culture relates to one’s background, country of origin,
language spoken, holidays celebrated and foods eaten. While her initial definition had not
changed, she did acknowledge that she had students in her class who did not share her
own cultural background as she had assumed:
Lo único que ha cambiado es que no dimos cuenta que hay niños de otras
culturas y aprendimos algo diferente. Pero pienso que la cultura, que cada
persona tiene su cultura según su origen.

The only thing that has changed is that we’ve learned that there are children from
other cultures and we learned something different. But I think that culture, that
each person has their culture depending on their origin.

During her exit interview, when Sarah was once again asked if her definition of culture
had changed, she affirmed her previous responses saying emphatically “No, no, en todo
estoy de acuerdo” [No, no, I am in agreement with all of it]. Yet, when further probed
and asked if there were new ways of thinking about culture that she did not have before
the professional development intervention, Sarah conceded that she enjoyed conducting
the family inventory project, especially the use of the home surveys:
Bueno lo que me gusto mucho fue la encuesta que hic[imos]. Fue algo que nunca
había echo…Vi que es algo que profundiza un poco más en los niños y darnos
cuenta las actividades que los papas les gusta hacer en casa con sus hijos y
descubrir los que a los niños les gusta leer en su casa, qué hacen.
Well, I really liked the home survey we did. It was something I had not done
before…I saw it was something that deepens the focus a bit more on the children
and we learned what activities the parents like to do at home with their children
and discovered what children like to read at home, what they do.
While Sarah’s conceptions of culture remained narrow, she did become aware that, while
all the children were Latino, they were not of Mexican origin. This was new knowledge
101
for her, and it was difficult for her to move from the types of lessons about culture
involving stereotypical notions of ethnic food and traditional celebrations specific to her
own Mexican culture. This was evidenced by lesson-planning sessions in which she
readily drew from her own experiential background did not move toward including other
Latino cultures even as she had knowledge—via the family inventory project—that she
had non-Mexican Latino students in her class. For example, the following is an excerpt
from our one-on-one lesson planning session regarding Mexican Independence Day.
Sarah: Ésta semana pienso buscar sobre la historia de México. Dos días, yo creo
que la historia.
Researcher: Okay. Y puede añadir no solo el de México pero también puede
añadir los días de independencia de muchos países latinos. Empiezan en
septiembre y van hasta octubre. Entonces podría incluír, eh, ¿no tiene un niño de
El Salvador? Puede informarse y dar la historia o hablar sobre la independencia
latina, pues, que todos venimos, nos independizamos de España, o algo así.
Puede incluír no solo a México pero—
Sarah: ¿La independencia y la historia de?
Researcher: De El Salvador. ¿No tienen un niño de El Salvador?
Sarah: Sí…[long pause]
Researcher: Sí, puede hablar de México e incluír El Salvador. Y si no sabe
mucho, le puede preguntar a los papas. [silence, long pause]
Sarah: Ellos también en estas fechas ¿ empiezan a festejar?
Researcher: Sí, yo creo que sí. No sé si ese día mero pero muchos países latinos
empiezan a festejarlo en estos días. Muchos entre septiembre y octubre porque en
Univisión siempre andan anunciando el mes del ‘orgullo hispano.’
Sarah: A-ja [skeptical]
Researcher: Tal vez eso puede ser una tarea para Ustéd.
Sarah: Okayyyyyy [reluctance]
Researcher: Para no dejar niños fuera—
Sarah: Mmmm-hmmmm— [more enthusiastic]
102
Researcher: Porque tal vez no todos los niños son mexicanos—
Sarah: Mmmmm-hmmmm [agreement]
Sarah: This week I plan to research the history of Mexico. Two days, I think on
the history.
Researcher: Okay. And you can add not only Mexico but also add the
independence days of many other Latin American countries. They begin in
September and October. So you could include, um, don’t you have a student from
El Salvador? You can inform yourself and give the history or talk about Latino
independence, well, that we all come from, we gained our independence from
Spain or something like that. You can include not only Mexico but—
Sarah: The independence and history of?
Researcher: Of El Salvador. Don’t you have a child from El Salvador?
Sarah: Yes [long pause]
Researcher: You can talk about Mexico and include El Salvador. And if you don’t
know much you can ask his parents.
Sarah: They, too, around these days start to celebrate?
Researcher: Yes, I think so. I don’t know the actual day but many Latin American
countries begin celebrating around this time. Many between September and
October because Univisión [Spanish language TV station] is always announcing
Hispanic Heritage Month.
Sarah: Uh-huh [skeptical]
Researcher: Perhaps that could be homework for you.
Sarah: Okayyyyyy [reluctance]
Researcher: To not leave children out—
Sarah: Mmmm-hmmmm— [more enthusiastic]
Researcher: Because perhaps not all the children are Mexican—
Sarah: Mmmmm-hmmmm [agreement]
In this conversation, Sarah seemed to understand that it is important to be inclusive of all
students in her class—activating prior knowledge, not leaving students out—especially in
light of her own admission that she did have at least one Latino student with roots in El
103
Salvador. However, neither the final lesson plans Sarah submitted for that week nor the
researcher’s classroom observations that week indicated that countries other than Mexico
were included in the lessons. Earlier, Sarah claimed it was important to her to teach
students about their cultural heritage, but it became evident that, to do so and honor all
students’ cultural backgrounds—not just her own—she would have to first acknowledge
cultural difference and then actively step out of her comfort zone to do something about
it. Sarah did demonstrate growth in her thinking, but, in this case, it did not result in an
immediate change in teaching practices. This was a missed opportunity to be culturally
responsive of all students, not just the ones she could easily accommodate.
Changes in Sarah’s attitudes about language and cultural diversity. Sarah’s
pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was 41; her post-intervention score six months
later decreased to 37 for a net change of four points. A decrease in composite score
indicates an overall change toward more favorable and positive attitudes and dispositions
towards cultural and linguistic diversity and working with ELs. A four-point change may
appear small, but, when the composite score is disaggregated into its sub-component
scores, a more nuanced view of the changes is possible. Sarah’s sub-score for the Rights
and Privileges construct decreased three total points from pre- to post-intervention.
Sarah’s sub-score in Aesthetic Caring increased by one point, which indicates a positive
change, since all the items of this construct were reverse-coded. Sarah’s sub-score in
the Responsibility/Culpability construct also decreased by three points. Overall, Sarah’s
composite score decreased from pre- and post-intervention administrations of the LATS-
R survey, and this change is consistent with other documented changes in statements
made at different points in the study and with Sarah’s observed teaching practices, which
104
are discussed next. Figure 3 provides a visual representation of her changes in LATS-R
scores and both Table 12 and Figure 2 present the composite scores for all teachers
(Appendix).
Changes in Sarah’s teaching practices over time. Over the course of six
months, many important changes were observed in Sarah’s teaching practices. Whereas
the initial classroom observation yielded 30 instances of culturally responsive teaching
practices and/or instances of EL scaffolding, 80 instances were documented at the mid-
intervention classroom observation, and 95 during the post-intervention classroom
observation. Thus, there was a steady increase and the count tripled from the pre- to post-
intervention (Table 3 and Figure 9, Appendix).
In addition to changing her instructional practices, the physical environment in
Sarah’s classroom also changed. With Sarah’s consent, the site administrator and the
author helped reconfigure her classroom to create more defined spaces to promote
literacy. For example, while Sarah’s classroom had a classroom library stocked with
plenty of good children’s literature and cushions in a quiet area, her class did not have a
designated writing center in which the children had access to writing materials and
supplies at all times. The writing center became a place where children could
independently go to practice stamping with letters, cutting pictures from discarded
magazines, newspapers and circulated advertisements to make collages, make cards and
write letters and notes to friends and family, and write in personal journals. As a result of
this major change, the children gained a place they could frequent to engage in active
learning with written material.
105
Sarah’s openness to feedback and willingness to try new things in the classroom
came slowly and near the end of the intervention period. As Sarah opened up, she was
more willing to ask for help and feedback on the days the author visited her classroom to
provide support. Sarah asked for a demonstration lesson. Sarah was planning to provide
a variety of activities related to Mexican Independence. This was a natural opportunity to
compare and contrast traditions and celebrations related to Independence Day from
multiple perspectives, a dimension of culturally responsive teaching practices. While
Sarah did not end up including other Latin American countries, she was persuaded that
comparing celebrations of American Independence Day and Mexican Independence Day
could be built on students’ experiential background and their prior knowledge, since
Sarah provided activities and lessons on the 4
th
of July during the summer. For this
demonstration lesson, the author used culturally representative artifacts including flags
and pictures of relevant national symbols. The class viewed the pictures using a laptop. In
addition, the children heard musical representations with lyrics in the original language
of both the American and Mexican national anthems. The author facilitated a discussion
with the children about how we celebrate both holidays at school and home using a
graphic organizer to record their responses using words and pictures. The author modeled
how providing an activity with built-in time for discussion gave the children the
opportunity to use language (Spanish or English) and share their knowledge. The
children were engaged, and Sarah saw how she could connect new lessons to previously
taught material, thereby accessing children’s prior knowledge.
Another example of Sarah’s changing instructional practices was evidenced in her
post-intervention classroom observation. As a result of working with Sarah and
106
prompting her with questions during lesson planning sessions, she planned to read a big
book, The Little Hen, to her students on the carpet as a whole group activity. This was a
positive development, as other times Sarah read to her class, the books were too small for
all the children to see. This led them to quickly lose interest and get off task. Sarah read
the story with inflection in English and translated in Spanish with the same enthusiasm.
She stopped to engage students using reading comprehension strategies such as asking
then children to make predictions. After reading and discussing the moral aspects of the
story (reaping and sowing), Sarah made literal connections between the story’s concepts
and used them to build background knowledge. The Little Hen featured the concept of
planting and Sarah connected that to the hands-on project of planting seeds in a garden.
The students then went outside to plant beans in the classroom garden. The reading
activity and the gardening project incorporated the use of culturally responsive teaching
practices. Sarah encouraged the use of the children’s home language and helped them to
build on their linguistic background. She used appropriate instructional materials and
allowed the children opportunities to talk and negotiate meaning in ways that greatly
differed from the pre-intervention classroom observation. Furthermore, Sarah’s lesson-
planning was more intentional; this was evidenced by the fact that she tied together
multiple related and interconnecting activities within a single day.
By then end of the intervention study period, Sarah used more and a wider range
of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices and scaffolding for EL
students than she did before participating in the professional development activities.
Sarah became more open about considering feedback about lesson planning and
107
instruction and expressed more confidence about trying new things in the classroom even
as she maintained her focus on cultural heritage and use of the children’s home language.
Case Two: The Childcare Teacher, Claudia
Meet Claudia. Claudia is an enthusiastic young teacher who has worked at LP
for six years. She is a single mother of two young children. Claudia is Puerto Rican and
Mexican, and, though she grew up speaking Spanish, she admitted she has learned a lot
and gotten much more practice at LP as a result of working with the children and their
families than she ever did in her personal life. Claudia is dedicated to her young students
and works hard to provide them a supportive, warm and caring learning environment
where they are nurtured and stimulated. She makes it a point to schedule and host at least
one open event in her classroom in which parents and families are actively encouraged to
participate. Claudia was proud to share about the family time she organized for her
students and their parents:
I usually have them once a month. I try my best to come up with an activity for
the families and the children to do together and bring to class and share it with
everybody. And I’ll, like, ‘I’m going to have Kite Day’ or I’m gonna have the
children and the families make a kite, come…and try to fly it together. Just so
they can have some family time together because a lot of my families work a lot
and they have no time for their child…like, family bonding time, family quality
time. This way, it helps the child feel more involved with their mom and dad and
then have them do an activity that means something.
Another example of scheduled “family time” occurred during the summer when Claudia
recreated an island-inspired Luau experience in the classroom. The children hand-crafted
their own unique tiki masks as a home project with their parents and then brought them in
to decorate the classroom. Children and their parents worked to create family flags that
celebrated their unique cultural heritage. Claudia worked to develop camaraderie among
108
the families. As a result of such family-friendly home projects and class-related events,
Claudia enjoyed a strong rapport with the LP families.
Like Sarah’s class, the children in Claudia’s childcare class are between the ages
of three and five. Unlike Sarah’s class, the children in Claudia’s class represent a wider
range of groups; there is more racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity. The majority of
children in Claudia’s class speak a language other than English at home. As a result, the
need for a common language necessitates the use of English in the classroom. While
Claudia is bilingual—like Sarah—she speaks more English than Spanish in the
classroom.
Claudia’s pre-intervention beliefs and knowledge. As an early childhood
educator, Claudia expressed her view that it is of utmost importance to offer comfort and
lower anxiety among her students, including new children. When asked if it was
important for teachers to learn more about the children, their families’ lives and the local
community, Claudia assented and elaborated:
…[W]hen you first meet a child, they know nothing about me and I don’t know
nothing about them and it’s kinda like it’s good to gain their trust by trying to get
to know a little more about them. I know it’s hard because we do have a lot of
kids in the classroom. Sometimes we get overwhelmed. Like I do, sometimes,
but it’s good to try to get to know a little more about, um, the child and the
background, the best, I mean, the best that you really can so you can help them be
more comfortable and be more into wanting to learn.
Claudia states it is important for teachers to get to know their students, reduce anxiety
associated with the new classroom environment, and focus on learning. Claudia further
discussed her view that culture is important in the classroom:
So all the children that are in the classroom, where they’re from, feel a little more
at home, for us to kind of know more about their backgrounds so this way we
kinda—because I know there are a lot of new ones [students] that I have from
different cultures—are kinda, like, real quiet and kinda lost because they’re like
109
‘it’s a whole different world’ because at home it’s probably way different. How,
you know, the way they live, and where they came from and anything.
From this response, Claudia reiterates positive views and dispositions toward cultural and
linguistic diversity, and working with EL students. Claudia’s views are consistent with
her classroom practices in that children’s language preferences are also affirmed in this
classroom. Children who prefer to communicate in Spanish do so with Claudia and her
bilingual teaching assistants. Furthermore, children were observed speaking to each other
in languages other than English and participated in classroom discussion in the language
of their choice. Since Claudia’s language preference was English, all professional
development intervention activities with her were conducted in English.
Claudia’s pre-intervention attitudes towards language and cultural diversity.
Claudia’s pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was 34, which is in the mid-range of
possible scores. These results indicate that Claudia generally has positive views and
dispositions toward cultural and linguistic diversity and working with EL students. For
example, a teacher’s sub-score in Aesthetic Caring best captured a teacher’s positive
views and dispositions toward cultural and linguistic diversity and working with EL
students. A total of four points are possible. Because all four items in the construct are
reverse-coded, the lower the score the more affirming toward cultural and linguistic
diversity a teacher may be (self-reported measure). The lowest (best) score is four points.
Claudia’s pre-intervention sub-score in Aesthetic Caring was four points. Claudia’s
childcare class was, by far, the most culturally and linguistically diverse classroom at LP
with more than five distinct home languages (other than English) and cultures
represented by her students. Given the statements Claudia made during the pre-
intervention teacher focus group and her observed teaching practices during the pre-
110
intervention classroom observation, the survey results were consistent. For example,
when asked during the pre-intervention teacher focus group if and how culture was
important for the classroom, Claudia responded:
It’s important. I think, to learn different cultures and um backgrounds of, um,
different children that we work with in our classrooms. This way we can know a
little bit more about them too. It’ll help with them because culture is basically
important.

Claudia self-reported beliefs about culture during the focus group are consistent with her
pre-intervention LATS-R survey score.
Claudia’s pre-intervention observed teaching practices. At the pre-
intervention classroom observation, forty-two (42) instances of culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practices were observed. The teaching behavior codes
were mostly split among three dimensions of culturally responsive teaching practices:
involving all students in the construction of knowledge; building on students’ personal
and cultural strengths; and scaffolding strategies for EL students. Claudia made great
efforts to create a classroom environment in which she involved all students in the
construction of knowledge by planning exploration projects and peer interaction and by
encouraging children to become more responsible for their own learning. It was evident
from the initial classroom observation that Claudia planned for children to develop
autonomy by providing them opportunities to select activities during independent work
time:
Claudia: Christine
6
, what area do you want to go play? [Christine motions toward
the Quiet Area at top of an upstairs loft in a wooden playhouse located in the
corner of the classroom. The quiet area was stocked with bean bags and a
bookshelf. This was in addition to classroom library located in its own defined
space elsewhere in the classroom. A few minutes later, Claudia hears Christine
yelling from the top of the quiet area.]

6
All teachers’ and students’ names are pseudonyms.
111
Claudia: Christine, how are we supposed to be in the Quiet Area? [Claudia
approaches the quiet area to more closely monitor what is happening in that area.]
From this example, it is evident that it is Claudia’s usual practice to extend to students
opportunities to make choices independently, and, while she wanted to provide structure,
she did not always convey clear and explicit parameters for behavior and conduct.
Sometimes, this approach made for a somewhat chaotic atmosphere characterized by a
high noise level.
In another example from this pre-intervention classroom observation, Claudia
circulates around the room and greets students as they arrive:
[Claudia turns her attention to another student that has come into the classroom
during the independent work time when students are exploring various activity
centers in the classroom. It is picture day and students are dressed more formally
than usual. Parents drop students off at the classroom and some stay to converse
with the teacher or say goodbye to their children.]
Claudia: Good morning, handsome! Wanna be my date? ¿Vamos a ir a bailar?
¿Sí? (Are we going to go dancing? Yes?) [Claudia reaches out to Martin and
begins to dance with him. Martin smiles and turns his head to look away. Martin’s
mother looks on from the door of the classroom. She waives goodbye and Martin
walks to the computer area.]
Claudia interacts with this student in an affectionate tone. Martin is new to Claudia’s
class and has not made many friends at this point. To build rapport and demonstrate
concern and caring for the student, Claudia demonstrated and encouraged the use of her
students’ home languages in efforts to minimize anxiety among her EL students. This is
an example of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practice. It was clear that
Claudia enjoyed working with her students and took care to provide fun activities for
them.
However, it was not immediately evident that the activities in Claudia’s class
were attuned to intentionally develop early language and literacy as the site administrator
112
required. Earlier in the morning during the pre-intervention classroom observation, in
response to on-going conflicts among students, Claudia discussed feelings in a large
group discussion on the carpet. She wanted students to understand the meaning of
different feeling words so that the children could better verbalize their emotions and
communicate more effectively or “use their words” rather than to act out. To facilitate
the discussion of feeling words, Claudia used photocopied illustrations of the feelings as
expressed by a cartoonish male character. The pages were not colored or bound together.
The words ranged from scared to loved to stressed to embarrassed. Claudia asked the
children to identify the words based on the pictures, but the students did not always
answer correctly as the pictures provided little context. While Claudia wanted to be
responsive to the children’s language needs, this exercise was not as effective as it could
have been. This brief activity was a missed opportunity to provide the children with more
“talk-time” to process and allow them to draw on their experiential backgrounds to move
the discussion forward. Furthermore, the materials presented (unbound, uncolored
photocopies) did not take into account the developmental needs of young.
At the time of the pre-intervention classroom observation, there was no clearly
defined space marked as a writing center where children could independently access
writing and other materials. However, there was defined area labeled as the classroom
library. Given the site administrator’s great emphasis providing literacy-related activities,
it was surprising that there was no writing center or that few students approached the
library area independently. This was clearly an area for growth that individualized
coaching could address directly. Nevertheless, taken together, Claudia’s observed pre-
intervention teaching practices were consistent with her stated beliefs during the pre-
113
intervention teacher focus groups and also the structured responses on the language
attitudes survey. Thus, at the outset of the study, Claudia’s beliefs, knowledge and
practices indicated she was favorably disposed toward cultural diversity and working
with EL students. Furthermore, she recognized and welcomed assistance and the
opportunity for highly individualized professional development and coaching.
Documenting Changes in Claudia’s Beliefs, Knowledge and Teaching Practices
Changes in Claudia’s beliefs and knowledge. From pre-intervention to post-
intervention, Claudia stated her definitions and views of culture had not changed much.
However, when asked to elaborate on her response she explained her views did change
with professional development,
Somewhat because it is also, um, part of the things that we do and say, um, that is
part cultural, um, just, um, a variety, um, even dancing can be part of cultural
background too. Um, things that we do, I, I, dressing and, um, can also be part of
it, too. So, I never really looked at it. I never really took those into consideration
until after this.
Claudia’s definition of culture expanded to incorporate cultural practices: the things we
say and do. Cultural practices were not originally part of Claudia’s definition of culture
during the pre-intervention teacher focus groups, and this expanded definition is directly
related to the content of the professional development training she received. When
Claudia was asked how her views had changed over time with respect to culture in the
classroom she responded that she always felt it was important:
Because it also, it was like an ice breaker too, get to know them to being there,
um different, and they all come from different, you know, cultures so I know that
that was a big important part of us getting to know them. But um, yeah, it is a lot
more important like than I really would’ve thought back then…because it does
help them learn too, because if you do things, uh, that have school connection at
home it can also get them more intrigued, more into learning different things at
school, too.
114
While Claudia reiterated that she always saw the value of affirming the cultural
backgrounds of her students, with the professional development she came to see that
directly responding to cultural and linguistic diversity was material to student learning.
Claudia came to see that learning about and valuing families and their distinct cultural
practices could and did serve as a way to make relevant connections between the home
and school. When she experienced that her students were more interested and that their
families were more invested in classroom learning activities, Claudia incorporated the
use of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices and embraced
suggestions and feedback, putting into practice what she understood and learned.
Changes in Claudia’s attitudes about language and cultural diversity.
Claudia’s pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was 34, and her post-intervention
score decreased to 29 for a net change of five points. A decrease in composite score
indicates an overall change toward more favorable and positive attitudes and dispositions
towards cultural and linguistic diversity and working with ELs. This five-point change is
important because it demonstrates that, even though Claudia held generally positive
views and dispositions toward cultural and linguistic diversity at the outset of the study,
she became even more sympathetic toward working with culturally and linguistically
diverse children who are learning English as a second or third language in her classroom.
While Claudia’s pre-intervention scores on Aesthetic Caring were the best possible on
the LATS-R scale, changes in a positive direction were documented in two areas: the
Rights and Privileges construct decreased three points from pre- to post-intervention and
the Assimilationist/Exclusion construct decreased by two points. Overall, Claudia’s
composite score decreased from pre- and post-intervention administrations of the LATS-
115
R survey, indicating a change in views about cultural and linguistic diversity toward
working with EL students. The noted change is consistent with other documented
changes in statements made at different points in the study as well as Claudia’s observed
teaching practices, which are discussed next. Figure 4 provides a visual representation of
her changes in LATS-R survey scores (Appendix).
Changes in Claudia’s teaching practices over time. Over the course of six
months, many changes were observed in Claudia’s teaching practices. Although 42
instances of culturally responsive teaching practices and/or instances of EL scaffolding
were observed initially, and only 31 instances were documented at the mid-point, 111
instances were documented during the post-intervention classroom observation. From the
pre- to post-intervention, Claudia’s frequency counts almost tripled (Figure 10,
Appendix).
As a result of the family inventory project in which teachers generated questions
for a home survey for families to complete as well the distribution of a disposable camera
for families to use together, Claudia claimed she learned a lot more about the children
and their families outside of the classroom. She also reported that parents were more
receptive to her after engaging the families with the home survey and camera project:
Yeah because I was like ‘Oh, I didn’t know that. I had no idea your mom did this
or your dad was into, you know, and so and so…Yes, it was like an ice breaker
with the mom. ‘Cause the mom was kinda, um, to herself. She would talk to me in
the morning, but you, I just um, I have felt that wall, and now that is completely
gone.
Claudia realized that reaching out to families to get to know them in a more in-depth way
helped her build on her relationships with parents. While Claudia claimed to always have
good rapport with families, this was only on the surface. Her response indicated she made
assumptions about parents’ personalities as well. After the family inventory project,
116
Claudia realized one of the mothers was not “to herself,” as she initially believed. Asking
questions and showing interest in the families was enough to break down communication
barriers between them. Claudia’s explanation of the wall coming down illustrates as
much.
In her post-intervention exit interview, Claudia stated that she found the in-
classroom support instrumental in incorporating more culturally responsive teaching
practices:
Oh material wise and then when you would come and support, it was good, was a
big help too. Helping me, standing by me, and like kinda guide me through the
activities that we’d plan out and just, you know, suggesting ideas that, you know,
we can use them, too.
This statement is consistent with the large increase in observed teaching practices.
Claudia said she benefited from the various professional development activities and this
is confirmed by the positive changes demonstrated through the classroom observations.
Moreover, Claudia specifically mentioned the individualized coaching she received from
the author by making explicit reference to the guidance and support executing
intentionally planned learning activities. Because she was open to the professional
development intervention activities, she was able to maximize the benefits of the
personalized coaching provided.
By the post-intervention classroom observation, it was evident that Claudia was
more intentional about her lesson planning and more confident about providing
purposeful activities that supported language and literacy development. For example,
Claudia planned a thematic unit for the week based on the classic story Stone Soup. She
actively sought ways to incorporate parent participation and tapped into them as
resources to enhance the classroom learning experience by asking them to bring in
117
various ingredients to add to the soup that she and her assistants cooked at the end of the
week. However, to prepare for that culminating activity, she realized that she could tie in
oral language development by focusing on increasing her students’ knowledge of the
names for a variety of vegetables. To ensure students had access to language, Claudia and
the children browsed a book together as a class to identify photographs of vegetables by
name. She also wanted students to have more deliberate literacy-based activities and
extended her large group discussion of story and vegetables into small group writing
sessions.
During the small group instruction, she encouraged students’ use of words in their
home languages as way to participate in the conversation with peers—a culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practice. Furthermore, she also used material resources
such as the vegetable and fruit realia (i.e. plastic educational toy) from the dramatic play
area of her classroom as extra-lingual support for students:
Claudia: Who can tell me what this is called? Who knows? (silent pause). It’s an
onion! Un-yun. (She holds up toy lettuce). What is this? Lettuce. (She holds up a
pea pod). Pea pods! Can you see the bumps? (She holds up a bell pepper next.)
Belén: ¡Chile!
Claudia: Bell pepper. Chile de campana. (Teacher smiles and nods at Belén and
then holds up eggplant realia). What’s this? (Teacher holds up carrot realia.)
All students: Carrots!
Claudia: Who knows what this is? We just talked about it (Teacher referring to
the book the class browsed as a class).
Sasha: Egg-corn!
Claudia: Eggplant! (Sasha, the other students and the teacher laugh together). So
right now we are going to color the vegetable that you like. It doesn’t have to be
one of these. It can be one your mommy makes at home. (Teacher holds up
crayons and paper.)
118
Sasha: I’m going to make a carrot!
Claudia: Are you coloring your favorite vegetable from home? So tell me about
what you’re drawing? I’m here so you can tell me all about it. (Teacher reaches
for a pen to record the child’s dictated thoughts.)
In the excerpt above, Claudia activated students’ prior knowledge and affirmed that
experiential knowledge was valid in the classroom by publically acknowledging the
Spanish term for bell pepper, asking about another child’s favorite vegetable at home,
and referencing yet another child’s mother. These are examples of culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practices. The lesson continued as various children
drew their favorite vegetables and talked with their peers at the kidney table. As Claudia
discussed each child’s drawing with them, she also served a carrot-raisin fruit salad made
by the children and the teacher’s assistant during the independent work time before this
lesson. Together, the children and the adults constructed new ways of conceiving of the
idea of salad, as carrot-raisin salad was new for some. This lesson included exploration
and inquiry as well and allowed for social interaction in which the children negotiated
meaning in multiple languages. Thus, by the end of the study, Claudia drew on many
culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices and also provided effective
scaffolds for the EL students in her classroom to build oral language and literacy skills.
With direct support and assistance, Claudia created a functional writing center
that her students used with increased regularity during independent work time. Claudia
expressed concern over making the writing center attractive to the students. During
lesson-planning sessions, the author helped her discuss introducing the writing center, its
purpose and its materials during small group instruction. The author suggested she model
the behavior she expected to see while students worked in the writing center and
suggested calling attention to it by making a whole group announcement about the
119
writing center during the morning message. By the end of the study, Claudia’s classroom
had a fully operational writing center that her students frequented during independent
work time and it quickly became a favorite spot for students.
Case Three: The Toddler Teacher, Noemi
Meet Noemi. Noemi was a relatively new teacher when the study began; it was
her first year as a lead teacher at LP. She was vivacious, outspoken and deeply caring. It
was evident that she enjoyed working with young children. The toddlers in her class,
aged two to three years old, adored her as she doted on them daily. Noemi took great care
to provide a stimulating environment in her classroom. She spent much time engaging the
children in singing, dancing, playing, reading, and talking. Noemi engaged the
youngsters in conversations and classroom discussions as they learned to “use their
words” to communicate their needs and express their emotions. Furthermore, Noemi also
crafted fun activities to get children excited learning and exploring their surroundings.
She, like her students, enjoyed trying new things and being involved in many activities.
Noemi’s pre-intervention beliefs and knowledge. As the teacher, Noemi
recognized she has an important role in getting the toddlers ready for preschool. Early on
in the project, she expressed the importance of getting to know the families and learning
about the children’s cultural and language backgrounds. She shared an example of her
curiosity about cultural and linguistic diversity by recounting an earlier experience when
she was teen with a neighbor who belonged to a different racial/ethnic group and spoke a
language different from her own:
My mom used to live in Hollywood and there’s a lot of Armenians. And my little
neighbor would come and be like ‘Ari!’ and I would be like ‘What are you talking
about?’ The little boy would say ‘Aghjik, ari!’ And I’m like, what does that
mean? Then I asked her mom, and the mom’s like ‘it means ‘Girl, come here!
120
Girl, come here!’ So it’s like the mom would speak to them in Armenian so they
knew Armenian and would see me ‘cause, you know, neighbors, and they would
call me over. And then once he started school, he would translate for his mom.
He would, like, translate, like the mom understood English, but she wasn’t like
fluent fluent. So, you know, that was good, you know, and it’s kinda good
because I learned a little bit of Armenian and she’s learning English and her child
too. So that was really good.
Noemi demonstrated that she recognized real differences across language and cultures
and experienced cultural and linguistic diversity in her personal life. However, when
asked to define culture, she expressed that it means “having different nationalities” and
when asked what she thought culture means in the context of working with children and
families at LP, she stated that it means:
Um, following their backgrounds. Following their beliefs. Following their
traditions. That’s basically what culture to them probably is so, um, like the kids I
have from Bangladesh they wear there [sic], you know, their culture [sic] outfits,
the parents and maybe they show their children to continue in their culture, or um,
just using their language, and their native language, continue the tradition. Um,
holidays, food. That’s what culture is.
So while Noemi demonstrated genuine interest in learning about the cultural and
linguistic diversity represented by the children in her classroom, she also defined culture
in crystallized and narrow terms. Noemi’s description of culture is steeped in folkloric
symbols which can be antiquated and frozen in time, (un)intentionally nostalgic of past
eras. This kind of symbolism sometimes stirs up false sentimentalism of romanticized
and exotified “simpler” times. Unfortunately, defining culture in static terms leads to
reminiscing about the “good ‘ol days” that never were and perpetuates uncritical thought
tending toward the oversimplification and obscuring of complex and painful cultural
histories.
Like Claudia’s class, there was much racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity in
Noemi’s class. While the common language of the classroom is English, Noemi often
121
spoke Spanish. All of the children in the toddler class were second and even third
language learners. The home language of most of the children in this class was not
English. Thus, the toddlers in Noemi’s class were mostly ELs even as many children
were pre-verbal and relied heavily on gesturing to communicate. Because of the
diversity, Noemi took it upon herself to learn important key words and phrases in every
child’s home language in efforts to communicate with both the families and the children.
This is an example of a culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practice.
Because of her outgoing personality and efforts to be inclusive of all differences, Noemi
was highly esteemed among the families and her colleagues. Although Noemi was
equally comfortable expressing herself and speaking in either Spanish or English, she
preferred that the professional development intervention activities in which she
participated be conducted English.
When asked what she expected to learn from participating in the professional
development intervention, it was evident that she expected the intervention to be about
multicultural education and explicit learning about culture as content:
Maybe giving us background about cultures and maybe we talk to the children.
Like if the parents went out of town and brought us a doll from Bangladesh and
maybe if you, you know, you could give us some information, like ‘Oh, this is
how it looks’ or ‘This is how they dress’. I could bring my doll, ‘Look, Adele,
brought me this doll from Bangladesh and this is what they wear and this is from
their culture’ and they grasp it.” [Noemi snapped her finger for effect].
As described here, Noemi presented a caricature or an essentialized version of culture
that could be reduced to cultural folklore and traditional dress and/or regalia. This
comment provides further evidence of Noemi’s narrow conceptions of culture.
Furthermore, she conflated multicultural education with culturally and linguistically
responsive pedagogy. However, she does not seem to be alone in this, as many
122
teachers—both proponents and opponents alike—do not fully understand how
multicultural education and culturally responsive pedagogy relate. Nevertheless, Noemi’s
comments reveal that making clear distinctions about what culturally responsive teaching
practices are (and are not) needed to be an important component addressed in the
professional development intervention activities.
Noemi’s pre-intervention attitudes toward language and cultural diversity.
At 26 points, Noemi’s pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was the lowest pre-
intervention for all the teachers in this study. These survey results indicate that Noemi
initially held very positive views and dispositions toward cultural and linguistic diversity
and working with EL students. While Noemi’s sub-score of seven points in Aesthetic
Caring indicated she held favorable views and dispositions towards working with
culturally and linguistically diverse students, her sub-score of eight points in Rights and
Privileges construct stood out in contrast to other teachers. Noemi’s self-reported
responses registered strong disagreement with the negatively worded statements in the
LATS-R scale about ELLs and working with EL students and their parents as well as
their language rights. For example, one of the statements in this category is “Parents of
ELLs should be counseled to speak English with their kids whenever possible.” Noemi is
the only teacher in the study who actually agreed with the sentiment expressed in that
statement at the pre- or post-intervention administration of the LATS-R scale. Across the
constructs in the LATS-R scale, Noemi consistently registered strong disagreement with
statements that overtly promote assimilation, are exclusive in nature or are generally
negative toward cultural and linguistic diversity. The survey results are consistent with
123
the statements Noemi made during the pre-intervention teacher focus group and her
observed teaching practices during the pre-intervention classroom observation.
Noemi’s pre-intervention observed teaching practices. The pre-intervention
classroom observation yielded 33 instances of culturally and linguistically responsive
teaching practices and/or scaffolding for EL students. Noemi demonstrated her ability to
build on her students’ personal and cultural strengths as well as employ a variety of
scaffolding strategies such as providing extra-lingual supports, clear and explicit
instructions, and engaging the children in purposeful activities in which EL students have
opportunities to interact with peers and negotiate meaning. For example, after breakfast
on the morning of the initial classroom observation the entire class gathered together on
the carpet to engage in calendar activities such as singing the days of the week in both
English and Spanish. Noemi provided verbal encouragement and repeated directions in
English and Spanish. Noemi modeled her expectations for student behavior and spoke to
students using age-appropriate vocabulary and, where necessary for students to
understand, used the child’s home language.
It was evident that Noemi set classroom procedures for the transition to recess. As
the children prepared to go to recess, the children lined up at the door. They grabbed the
back of the shirt of the child directly in front of them. Together, they sang a song called
Trenecito [Little Train] to the tune of ‘Where is Thumpkin?’ as they walked from the
classroom to the outdoor play area,
Everyone: Tre-ne-ci-to, tre-ne-ci-to, ya se va, ya se va. Yendo despacito, yendo
despacito. Chu-chu-chu, chu-chu-chu. Dos ma-ni-tas, dos ma-ni-tas, bién
agarraditas, bién agarraditas. Diez de-di-tos, diez de-di-tos.
Everyone: Little train, little train, here we go, here we go. Going very slowly,
going very slowly. Choo-choo-choo, choo-choo-choo. Two little hands, two little
hands, holding tightly, holding tightly. Ten little fingers, ten little fingers.
124
The creative use of the choo-choo train song appealed to the toddlers because it is sung in
Spanish, the home language of the majority of the children. This is a culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practice. Using the children’s home language is
affirming and lowers the anxiety of EL children. Additionally, by having the children
hold onto each other and essentially play “Follow the Leader” while walking in single-
file line, the children actively work on their gross motors skills and hand-eye
coordination, which is developmentally appropriate for toddlers.
Once outside, the children were given the opportunity to explore the playground
with their peers and engage in dramatic play. On the toddler yard, there were a couple of
miniature shopping carts the children used to make-believe grocery shopping at the local
supermarket:
Two girls walk as they push their shopping carts when Iris, Noemi’s teaching
assistant approaches them and asks, “What are you playing?” Jenny responds
“We’re playing ‘Food for Less’ [a regional supermarket chain commonly found
in low-to moderate SES communities]. Iris joins them on a pretend shopping trip.
Meanwhile, Noemi is playing with children on the large jungle gym. The children
have a make-believe birthday party. The children begin to sing ‘Happy Birthday’
to Noemi and to several students. The children take turns being the birthday girl
or boy.
In these examples, Noemi demonstrated culturally and linguistically responsive teaching
practices via her willingness to engage her students in make-believe plots the children
chose independently, rather than directing the activities. This example of child’s play
illustrates Noemi’s use of culturally responsive teaching practices: she actively
encouraged children to socially construct knowledge through inquiry-promoting activities
and allowed them to make autonomous choices as they become increasingly responsible
for their own learning.
125
While Noemi demonstrated her playful side and actively engaged the children in
fun activities that held their attention and provided many opportunities for them to
develop oral language through directed singing, which the children clearly enjoyed, there
were some missed opportunities in which children could have been more actively
engaged around storytelling and reading of children’s books. More could be done to
promote literacy and early school readiness in the classroom. For example, while
Noemi’s classroom had a designated library area furnished with toddler-sized cushioned
sofas and bilingual books, it was not evident that the adults in the classroom directed the
children to that part of the classroom. Furthermore, there was no defined writing center or
place where the children could independently access writing supplies (papers, crayons,
markers, etc.) for exploration.
Documenting Changes in Noemi’s Beliefs, Knowledge, and Teaching Practices
Changes in Noemi’s beliefs and knowledge. When Noemi was asked at the
mid-intervention focus group how her definitions of culture had changed since the
beginning of the study, she stated that her definition of culture had changed somewhat:
Well, for me they’ve probably changed in the aspect of involving the family
more, the culture into the class, that’s it. But other than that, I think, like, it’s still
religion and, you know, and language and everything and all of that has to do
with culture…All of that still has to involve that, but now I’m trying to involve
the parents more. So that’s kinda also culture. ‘Cause you know also culture
‘cause the other kids that don’t have the culture are in there [classroom].
Curiously, Noemi related notions of culture with concepts of family. In doing so, she
demonstrated a significant growth in her conceptual understandings of culture. Whereas
Noemi initially viewed culture as an all-encompassing and monolithic idea, by the
middle of the study, her definitions of culture weaved in and included individual families.
When asked to elaborate on what she did to involve the families, Noemi said, “Like
126
bringing in flags, bringing pictures, you know, different materials from the home, things
like that.” When pressed about what she meant by saying that kids did not have culture,
Noemi responded that that some students did not “have that culture, like they come from
a different culture.” However, during her exit interview, Noemi statements changed:
Before I was thought ‘Okay, where you come from, like, what you do and things
like that and now it’s kinda more like you have to get more into detail, like uh,
like home, education, language, like, more into detail instead of just thinking ‘Oh,
I come from here’ and ‘You’re like this’ and instead of thinking just like that,
now you have to really focus more on like the personal, and like focus more on
the culture, like, what they’re used to…Instead of, like, food and I have to go
more into, like, other things.
Despite initially expressing narrow views of culture, by the end of the intervention,
Noemi’s notions of culture were expanded, and she was more focused on figuring out
how to incorporate her new learning and understanding into the classroom. The above
statement is indicative of Noemi’s movement from the general to the particular. In fact,
Noemi realized she made many assumptions about her students and their families. As a
result of engaging them in the family inventory project, at the mid-intervention point
Noemi stated:
Because before [the intervention], I just think, to know where they’re from, that’s
good. But no, you don’t really know if they, like, I know that some them have
siblings, but I don’t know how many. And I don’t know if they live with their
mom or if they don’t live with their dad and, you know, what if I’m all seeing her
everyday dropping them off and picking them up and think that ‘Oh, they’re
together [the parents].’ I’m assuming. I don’t really know…Instead of assuming,
actually know.
Here, Noemi provided an example of how engaging parents in conversation and the
family inventory project helped her build stronger rapport with the parents and learn
more about the families. Through the above statements, Noemi made clear that knowing
about students families is not the same as knowing them in a personal way. Additionally,
127
by the end of the intervention, Noemi said that, through the family inventory project, she
learned much more than just about a child’s siblings:
Um, I didn’t know, like, the talents that the parents had. You know, it’s kind of,
like, good to know because you could actually talk about it, like, ‘Oh, your
mommy likes to sing?’ Then they’ll tell you, like ‘Yeah, my mommy likes to sing
this song.’ And they [children] get more into details and they actually talk about
in the classroom. Instead of just talking about the ABCs, 123s, like, you know,
you actually have some information that you could actually tell them and then
they actually respond.
In this statement, Noemi expressed excitement about the breakthrough in communication
she had with her students. Because Noemi had more information about the students’
experiential backgrounds, she was able to engage them in authentic instructional
conversations and, to her surprise, the children became more interested in class
discussions and more readily practiced oral communication. Tapping into and drawing on
students experiential and background knowledge is a culturally and linguistically
responsive teaching practice.
By the end of the intervention, Noemi, like Claudia, began organizing and hosting
monthly events on the school grounds to provide family time and as a way for other
parents to connect with each other as a community. However, she was initially reluctant
to invite and engage with the parents who did show up to events:
It’s changed also because I was thinking before, like, ‘Oh, the parents are not
gonna come. Like, they’re not gonna show up, like, if I invite then to an event,
like, I kinda feel, like they were, like, a little behind, like, when they stayed
behind, like, okay, ‘Here you go, here it is, let’s go!’ [Teacher refers to lack of
parent participation during events.] I know, like, now I feel like I talk to them
more and, like, invited them and they come…I try to do once a month, like, part
of an activity where parents come and a they have, like, some activity. Like, last
month it was uh, um, a picnic…and now this month it’s gonna be arts and crafts
day.
Noemi stopped assuming parents were not interested or were too busy to participate in
school or class-related events. She realized that, as she used the information she learned
128
from the home surveys, she had more information with which to engage parents and
build rapport. Noemi noticed that as the communication between her and her students’
parents improved, the parents’ expressed increased interest in and participation with the
classroom activities.
Another example of Noemi’s leveraging her relationships with the families to
provide resources for her classroom is that she reached out to one of the children’s
parents who worked at a nearby hospital. Noemi asked the parent if she would be willing
to provide supplies for the classroom’s dramatic play area. Noemi wanted the children to
have a mini-hospital:
When I explained to them that it’s because we’re trying to, you know, bring up
the class a little bit more and have the kids have more stuff and be able to know a
little bit more by the time [they move to the preschool class], they’ll be, like,
okay…I want to bring up, like, make it nicer, like make it more fun for the kids
‘cause they get bored of, like, the same things over and over and over again…So
our plan is like next to the kitchen is gonna turn into a little hospital and one of
the daughter’s mom brought us, like, hand bracelets and ice packs and band aids.
Again, the family inventory project served as the impetus for Noemi to get to know about
the children and their families on a deeper level. As a result of the improved
communication resulting from more conversations with children and parents, Noemi was
emboldened. She gained more confidence in approaching parents and this made it
possible for her to provide the classroom with more resources that ultimately led to
improving the learning experience for all students.
Changes in Noemi’s attitudes about language and cultural diversity. Noemi’s
pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was the lowest of all teachers at 26 points; her
post-intervention score decreased to 24 for a net change of two points. A decrease in
composite score indicates an overall change toward more favorable and positive attitudes
and dispositions towards cultural and linguistic diversity and working with ELs. This
129
two-point change may seem minimal, but it is important because it demonstrates that,
even though Noemi held very positive views and dispositions toward cultural and
linguistic diversity at the outset of the study, over the course of the intervention, there
was still room to become even more empathetic toward working with culturally and
linguistically diverse children who are learning English in her classroom. While Noemi
demonstrated a very small change in LATS-R score from pre- to post-intervention
administration, both her scores were the lowest, by far, of all teachers. Noemi was one of
two teachers who demonstrated no score changes in the Rights and Privileges construct.
However, Noemi’s pre- and post-intervention score of eight points remained the lowest
when compared to the rest of the teachers at either administration of the LATS-R survey.
Noemi’s scores in Assimilationist/Exclusion and Responsibility/Culpability
decreased by two points each. This is indicative of moving in toward holding favorable
dispositions regarding cultural and linguistic diversity. Noemi’s score in the Aesthetic
Caring construct decreased by two points as well. However, because the items in this
construct were reverse-coded, a decrease in points here represented a move in the
opposite direction or towards having less favorable views and dispositions towards
working with EL students. All changes taken together, however, indicated Noemi’s
positive views about cultural and linguistic diversity toward working with EL students.
The noted changes, while inconsistent among themselves, are well-supported with other
documented changes in statements made at different points in the study as well as
Noemi’s observed teaching practices, which are discussed next. Figure 5 provides a
visual representation of her changes in LATS-R survey scores (Appendix).
130
Changes in Noemi’s teaching practices over time. Over the course of six
months, Noemi’s teaching practices exhibited many changes. Whereas the initial
classroom observation found 33 instances of culturally responsive teaching practices
and/or instances of EL scaffolding were observed, the mid- and post-intervention
observations found 69 and 68 instances, respectively. Thus, a large increase was
observed over time. From the pre- to post-intervention, Noemi’s frequency counts
doubled (Table 13 and Figure 11, Appendix).
When Noemi was asked, during the mid-intervention teacher focus group, what
things she did in her classroom differently compared to before the professional
development training, she said she planned more hands-on activities, especially those that
could also be replicated at home so the children could share school learning with their
parents. When pressed to be more specific about what she did differently, Noemi
expressed wanting to ensure her students learned more and were prepared for success:
Basically, for the bigger ones, I guess, ‘cause I want them to be ready to go to the
other [preschool] class. And have, like, a little bit more, have a little bit more
knowledge so that way they know more. And the little ones, well like, they’re still
gonna learn a little more on their own…Because like in my class, like it’s more
like they get to play and they have some fun. Now, I want them to sit down and
like ‘Let’s look at this.’ That way, I explain it to them and that way, they know.
And learn a little bit of what I’m going to explain before I do it.
Noemi expressed her increased efforts at being more purposeful in her planning activities
and providing lesson that were more “educational.” This is undoubtedly a result of
having individualized culturally responsive coaching and professional development.
Before the professional development intervention activities, Noemi had not explicitly
stated her goals included creating “educational” activities for the children. In other
words, in the above response Noemi demonstrated how she changed her thinking about
131
what the toddlers in her class could be doing. She now made conscious efforts to provide
guided lessons and activities that were educational and fun as well as language-rich.
During her post-intervention classroom observation, Noemi engaged the students
in a lesson focused on early literacy. She brought the class to the tables from the carpet to
conduct a whole group lesson about the alphabet. To capture student’s interest and
activate their prior knowledge, she pre-selected the letters for the children to explore—
only those letters of the students’ first initials were chosen.
Noemi: Let’s go sit at the tables! We’re going to do alphabet letters! [Children
moved to the table area and sat down at the tables.] Okay, today we’re going to
look at the alphabet letters. [Noemi held up a bin with plastic letters]. Shhhhhh,
everyone needs to be quiet. Jacqueline, siéntate [sit down]. Manitas debajo de la
mesa [little hands under the table], Joel. [Noemi hold up a plastic magnetic letter
M]. This is ‘M’ for Mom. M for Manuel. M for Mina. M for Maggie. Can you say
M?
Children: M! M!
Noemi: I’m going to give you an M if your name starts with the letter M. Can you
say M? Whose name starts with the letter M? M-aggie, M-ina, M-anuel. [Noemi
pulled out the letter ‘A.’] Who’s name starts with the letter A? Ally Alligator…or
Albert. A for Albert! Ready, Albert? A is for ants, ants! [Albert raised his hand to
reach for the letter A. Noemi hand him the plastic letter. She pulled out the letter
‘B.’] Who starts with letter B? [Showed B to all the students]. Bernardo,
Bernardo. Someone else starts with the letter B. Bianca! B is for Bianca!
Everybody say B: /b/-/b/-/b/-/b/-b/-/b/.
Children: /b/-/b/-/b/-/b/-b/-/b/.
Noemi: [Noemi pulled out the letter S.] Sammy! S is for snake!
Albert: Can we take it [bin with letters] outside?
Noemi: We’ll see. Let’s talk about your letter. A is for Albert. What’s your name?
Your name starts with the letter A. We’re going to go outside in fifteen minutes.
You wanna see more letters?
Children: Yes! Yes!
Noemi: Here we go! Woohoo! [At this point in the lesson, Noemi let the students
take handfuls of plastic letters out of the bin she was holding and put them on the
132
table. Students explored the letters with their peers. The teacher and the children
named several objects that began with the letter they were touching or holding.]
The lesson continued for a few more minutes, and, after the children cleaned up the table
area, they lined up at the door for recess. Albert held the plastic bin of letters to take
outside. In this lesson, Noemi made exploration of the alphabet relevant to the students,
and provided a meaningful opportunity for her EL students to engage in social interaction
with their peers as well as negotiate meaning. Thus, in this learning activity, Noemi
modeled the use of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices.
Noemi also explained and provided an example of how she used culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practices in her classroom as a direct result of the
family inventory project. She stated that using the cameras was helpful because, even
though the photographs taken by students and their families were completely
indiscernible to her, the photographs served as extra-lingual support for her students in
their oral expression and language development:
Uh, like with the camera. I think it was good because we checked them out. Some
of them came out good, some them came out weird, but um, they [children] were
able to tell us, like, what they did with those cameras… and they showed them
and she said ‘I went to pony rides’ and then Maria explained what her dog’s name
was and how her dad made carne asada [Mexican-style grilled steak] for
her….So we actually sat down during circle time. We took out the pictures and
we were all sharing, and they did, they were talking about it. So, like, that activity
was fun because the parents got to do something with them and then we got to see
what they did instead of, like, ‘Oh, what did you do this weekend, I went
shopping.’ So with those pictures, they were able to explain a little more what
they were doing.
By using the pictures the children took with their families with the disposable cameras,
Noemi provided the children with an effective scaffold for her EL students as these
pictures aided the children in their communication skills. Furthermore, Noemi
demonstrated responsiveness to her students by drawing on students’ experiential
133
backgrounds, prompting the use of children’s home language and facilitating
instructional conversations. These are all examples of culturally and linguistically
responsive teaching practices.
By the end of the intervention period, Noemi not only increased her use of
culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices and scaffolding for her EL
students, she realized that the changes she made paid off for her students. Noemi was
also satisfied that parents had taken notice of the positive changes and attributed those to
her efforts.
Case Four: The Early Infant Teacher, Norah
Meet Norah. Norah began her career as an early childhood teacher due to her
affection for young children. At the beginning of this study, she had completed her tenth
year working at LP. As the teacher of the youngest infants on site, she worked with
babies as young as three months to one-year old. Having worked in the same early
childhood center over a decade, she had the privilege of watching many babies grow and
move from class to class until, at five years old, the children were ready to move on to
kindergarten somewhere else. Norah lived in the community where LP was located and
could technically walk to work if not for preferring a lift from a neighbor or friend.
Norah shared much about her youth and growing up near LP and often expressed her
views about the role of parents and her early experiences in school. Over the course of
the study, Norah shared that her upbringing was difficult and that she dealt with severe
hardships over the years. However, working with infants gave her a calming sense of
peace and satisfaction.
134
Norah’s pre-intervention beliefs and knowledge. During the pre-intervention
teacher focus group, when asked to discuss her views of culture and how these might be
important in the classroom, Norah expressed typically narrow views of culture. She
explained she had mounted posters in her classroom meant help all students feel
inclusive, “They’re posters, we have, like, African Americans, we have Muslims, we
have, um, down syndrome, we have, like, different races so they could, I guess, relate to
them, the kids.” Displaying the posters was a function of compliance with curriculum and
certification requirements more than a personal desire on Norah’s part. She offered
another example in sharing that, “We had an activity a while back for Flag Day. Um, all
the nationalities did their own flag. And, um, they brought a plate of food, so they, they
kind of showed the kids the difference.” When asked how her students responded to this
activity, Norah said “Mine were too little, but the older ones were the ones with the better
experience. Curiosity.” With these statements, Norah shared her conceptions of culture;
she did not seem to think they were especially relevant due to the age of her young
students. The infants that Norah worked with, although they represented the largest age
range, were the youngest of the children served at LP. Because Norah’s infants were
neither mobile nor verbal, she openly wondered about the utility of engaging in the
professional development intervention activities, repeating several times during the focus
group “mine are too little.” This became a sentiment that Norah expressed consistently
throughout the study. Norah’s concern about the babies being too young actually
revealed her own conceptual misunderstandings about multicultural education and
culturally responsive teaching practices. In other words, Norah’s concern about the
babies’ ages signaled that she erroneously thought the professional development was
135
about her providing multicultural education for the infants rather than about her learning
how to take a culturally and linguistically responsive approach to working with the
infants and their parents.
Norah recognized that, at this early stage of the children’s development,
relationships with parents were very important, and she expressed rather candid views
about the role of parents in her work. For example, Norah felt strongly that parents were
not very cooperative:
Um, some parents are involved with, you know, your lesson plan and whatever
kind of activity that you have, and we have other parents that don’t. I don’t want
to say that they don’t care, but I think it would better if they would actually try,
to, like, get more involved…I guess it goes year by year, there’s parents that
actually like, for, like Harvest Halloween, for example. Right, um, years before,
we would do the kids’ costumes. A few years back we started having the parents
actually do them. So, they’re not store-bought. Um, we hand them supplies like
construction paper, tag board, felt, and anything they need and um, that goes so
they could, um, spend some time with their kids, work with their kids…We put
up family pictures on the wall, and again, a lot of parents comply with you and
other parents are just kinda like ‘Yeah, okay’ and, you know, we remind them
constantly, but they don’t do it.
Here, Norah expressed rather pessimistic views about working with the children’s parents
and her tone of voice reflected frustration and feelings of exasperation. Furthermore,
Norah’s idea of cooperation is actually compliance. In her example, Norah demonstrated
what she really wanted was for parents to do what she required. However, later in the
teacher focus group, she returned to subject of parental involvement to explain why
parents were not more involved, saying:
I think it also does it with their background, the parent’s background too. Like
my personal experience would be that, okay, my dad, um, he didn’t, he doesn’t
speak English, so could only help so much. And then my mom was, like,
illiterate. She can’t read or write. So wouldn’t be able to help me with my, any
homework. Period, you know. So I think that has to do a lot with their
backgrounds, the way, from where they’re coming from. My dad only went to
third grade in Mexico.
136
In this response, Norah drew on personal knowledge to relate to the situation some the
families with whom she worked actually faced. However, in being able to relate, she did
not demonstrate empathy, but resentment and/or annoyance. While she wanted parents to
be more involved, she recognized there could be real potential barriers to parent
participation.
Norah was most concerned about her ability to work more closely with parents
while balancing concerns such as the families’ need for privacy, learning about the
childrearing practices at home, and the child’s unique needs. While the need to respect
privacy is a legitimate concern, it may also (un)consciously serve as justification for not
taking a more active approach to developing stronger relationships with parents. Norah
agreed to participate in the study, but she projected a non-committal attitude toward
professional development; she initially seemed unconvinced that it would be valuable or
relevant because of the children’s age. Norah’s language preference was English and all
of her professional development sessions were conducted in English.
Norah’s pre-intervention attitudes toward language and cultural diversity.
Norah’s pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was 36, which is in the mid-range of
possible composite scores. These survey results indicate that Norah did not hold very
positive and favorable views and dispositions toward cultural and linguistic diversity, and
working with EL students. In the Rights and Privileges construct, Norah indicated
agreement with importance of learning English and that it should be a top priority for
families even at the detriment of the home language. She agreed with the following
statements: “Parents of ELLs should be counseled to speak English with their kids
whenever possible” and “The rapid learning of English should be a priority of non-
137
English-proficient or limited-English proficient students even if it means they lose their
ability to speak their native language.” Agreement with these statements seemed to
indicate Norah may hold some negative views toward cultural and linguistic diversity.
Furthermore, Norah strongly disagreed with statements in the Aesthetic Caring construct
such as: “I would support the government spending additional money to provide better
programs for linguistic-minority students in public schools” and “Regular classroom
teachers should be required to receive pre-service or in-service training to be prepared to
meet the needs of linguistic minorities.” Taken together, Norah’s self-reported views as
documented in the pre-intervention administration of the LATS-R survey gave strong
indication that she did not hold views conducive to learning about culturally and
linguistically responsive professional development aimed at helping her better educate
English-learning children. Overall, Norah’s composite score on the LATS-R is consistent
with her early participation in the professional development activities from statements
given at pre-intervention teacher focus groups to her initial classroom observation to
early professional development sessions. Norah expressed reluctance to change during
pre-intervention data collection. Given her obvious hesitation, it seemed Norah would be
the teacher least likely to benefit from the highly interactive professional development
intervention.
Norah’s pre-intervention observed teaching practices. The pre-intervention
classroom observation documented 69 instances of culturally and linguistically
responsive teaching practices and/or scaffolding for EL. Despite the children’s being so
young, Norah provided the children with many opportunities to become responsible for
their own learning and used the many instructional materials available to her in the
138
classroom with the young students. Norah gave clear and explicit instructions often and
encouraged the use of the home language throughout the entire observation period (Table
13, Appendix).
During the pre-intervention classroom observation, Norah and her two assistants,
Carmen and Leslie were highly visible and responsive to the children’s needs. Of the
three adults in the classroom, the assistants used more language in teacher-student
interactions. While there was a relatively high number of culturally and linguistically
responsive teaching practices, these were mostly demonstrated by the assistants and less
so by Norah. The children had free time to explore the classroom and play in different
areas. Some children played with their peers, others played alone, and still others
engaged the adults in the classroom, recruiting them to play along:
[Veronica puts on a firefighter’s hat. Other children see her and come to the
dramatic play area to join her. Norah helps Matilda put on a nurse’s top. Matilda
reaches for NASA space helmet.]
Norah: Matilda, bring me the hat.
Matilda: I put it on! [Norah walks away and circulates to mini-kitchen play area
to monitor other students. At this point, Veronica who is still wearing the
firefighters’ hat is putting plastic vegetables and fruits (play foods) onto plates.
She was playing alone when other students gathered around her.]
Norah (to Veronica): You need to share. [Norah turns to the mini-library area].
Norah (to Leo): Vamos a guardar los libros. [Lets’ puts away the books.]
Leslie: It’s cold! [Referring to the ‘food’ Matilda served on her plate and brought
to her.]
Norah: Apple? [Pretended to bite plastic toy apple.]
Leo (to Norah): Norah, go to sleep.
Norah: Go to sleep? Okay. [Norah lied down in the library area where they had
just put away the books and pretended to sleep.] I go mimi [sleep from the
Spanish word dormir].
139
Leo: Blanket? [He lied down next to Norah].
While Norah allowed for students to openly explore the different areas of the classroom
and was an active participant in games and make-believe play the children initiated, she
did not provide much oral language support. She rarely engaged the children in
meaningful conversation. She did not ask many open-ended questions and, thus, missed
opportunities to stimulate the students’ speech production in either English or Spanish.
However, there was balance in the classroom: one of the teaching assistants was
exceptionally talkative and friendly, facilitating interesting instructional conversations
with all of the young children in both English and Spanish.
Norah was affectionate toward the children, demonstrating caring as she had
terms of endearment for many of the children such as calling Leo by the nickname
“Borbollo,” which means bubble in Spanish but is used in reference to his love of
blowing bubbles. Norah also repeatedly called Matilda “Baby Beluga” in reference to her
favorite children’s song and plastic toy orca whale. Both children responded positively to
the terms of endearment. Norah also used the children’s home language in expression of
empathy. For example, Veronica hit another child, Cameron, who had begun to wail.
Norah’s immediate response was to pick Cameron up to soothe him, and she said aloud
“¡Ay, pobrecito!” which translates to “Oh, poor baby.” Encouraging the use of the home
language and using these terms of endearment to lower the anxiety associated with being
an EL student are examples of how Norah used culturally and linguistically responsive
teaching practices. While Norah expressed, during the pre-intervention teacher focus
group that language development was very important for the age-group of children with
which she worked, she actually spoke the least to the children and was the adult in the
140
classroom who engaged them the least in open-ended conversations throughout the initial
classroom observation.
It is important to note that Norah started the study while working with the infants
aged one-to-two years of age. Shortly after the pre-intervention classroom observation,
Norah requested and moved to the early infant (three months to one year old) classroom
where she remained for the rest of the study.
Documenting Changes in Norah’s Beliefs, Knowledge, and Teaching Practices
Changes in Norah’s beliefs and knowledge. While Norah’s views about culture
did not change from pre- to mid-intervention teacher focus groups, her views did shift
somewhat by the end of the intervention. She explained that while her views were
similar, she saw things more clearly:
I see it [culture] more, to where, um, I’m more aware, that I mean, my kids are
actually, like, I’m more alert on it [culture]. Um, that the kids are actually, um,
different ways, you know that it’s important to bring it [culture] into the
classroom. You know it helps them…and to help them feel more comfortable in
their environment, it’s not like, you know, like, um, they’re not just thrown in.
We try to make them feel at home.
After discussing how her views had shifted, she also admitted that she did not see the
value of trying incorporate culture into the classroom because she felt it was her job to
attend to the basic needs of the each infant. However, what Norah did not realize was, in
attending to each child’s specific needs, she was actually being culturally and
linguistically responsive because what comforted each child was uniquely related to the
child’s home environment:
Before I was like, ‘Okaaaaaay,’ you know? Uh, not that I don’t care, but I was a
little more focused on trying to tend to their needs and working with them on their
milestones and stuff like that versus that maybe now, well, maybe stuff that I
know could help me better to help them.
141
From the pre-intervention teacher focus group to the mid-intervention focus group, Norah
still felt the children she worked with were “too little” or young for matters of culture to
be relevant. As previously mentioned, this statement is indicative of Norah’s
understanding of culturally responsive teaching practices and the purpose of the
professional development intervention.
While Norah still felt strongly that parental involvement was a key factor in later
student achievement and success, she also expressed the view that teachers can shape
how students learn when she stated that “if you make your classroom environment
comfortable for them, they learn. It’s easier for them to learn.” Norah related making the
classroom environment comfortable to parent communication, which is a culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practice that was discussed and emphasized through the
professional development intervention activities. One of the main purposes for teachers
to engage their students and their families with the inventory project was for teachers to
gain an avenue for strengthening communication and deepening relationships. Norah
described a relationship with one the parents in this way:
Like, Aaron’s mom. We have really good communication to where I call her. She
feels comfortable. Like the other day I was telling her that he’s six months. [She
explains that at six months the child should be sitting up independently in a
highchair for feedings. Yet at home, his mother feeds him on her lap. He had a fit
earlier in the week and he cried a lot but after some time, Norah was able to get
Aaron to use the highchair.] When his mom picked him, I told her what happened
and she was like ‘That’s what he needs. He needs someone to be tough with him.’
So now he actually sits in the chair and eats.
When Norah was asked why she thought the parent felt comfortable with her, she
responded that the parent was “open-minded” and that “she’s comfortable telling us, and
allowing us to do something. She trusts us. When further pressed about why she felt that
was the case, Norah responded:
142
Yeah, she trusts us and she is like, ‘Okay, try it’ and other parents they’re like
‘No! I don’t want her to do that because she could get hurt, she could do this and
no.’ And that’s how I see close-minded. ‘No, don’t do that.’
Norah understood that through communication, she was able to build rapport with
parents, although not all. She did not seem to connect that this openness was at least in
part due to her taking initiative to get to know the parents better through the family
inventory project. Creating openness between teachers and parents is, in fact, a culturally
and linguistically responsive teaching practice—one that Norah actually incorporated
over time. During the mid-intervention teacher focus group, Norah was asked if her
views had changed about the role of the family in the classroom or how it was important
for her as a teacher to get reach out to parents. Her response was “We could only do so
much. We’re limited. We have limitations.” These statements reflected Norah’s
perceptions of her own lack of agency as a teacher. By the end of the intervention, Norah
expressed her frustration with getting more parental involvement:
Mmmmmmm, I still have trouble with them, ‘cause I have to tell them over and
over and over and over and over and over…Well, we try. I try, you know…But I
understand, I mean, you know, working parents and, you know, sometimes you
don’t have time be involved in your, you know, child’s life…[Her voice trails
off.]
While Norah seemed to sympathize with busy parents, she was also making evaluative
statements about the parents’ priorities. Despite the fact that Norah held negative
opinions about childrearing styles of some of the families with which she worked, she
felt the family inventory project helped her improve her ability to communicate with the
parents.
In short, Norah’s overall beliefs and knowledge about culture changed somewhat.
She acknowledged that she became more aware of issues related culture and language
that affected her work with the infants and her interactions with parents. Through
143
generating the home survey and distributing disposable cameras, parents noticed that
Norah seemed more interested in getting to know them and parents responded by opening
up and trusting her more. As Norah realized that part of tending to an infant’s unique
needs were rooted in differences in parenting styles that may be related to cultural
practices within the home, she recognized the purpose and value of the family inventory
project. Thus, her slowly-improving relationships with parents eventually translated into
some important changes in her lesson planning and teaching practices. These noticeable
changes are described below.
Changes in Norah’s attitudes about language and cultural diversity. Norah’s
pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was 36; her post-intervention decreased to 29
for a net change of seven points. A decrease in composite score indicates an overall
change toward more favorable and positive attitudes and dispositions regarding cultural
and linguistic diversity and working with ELs. The seven-point difference is the largest
documented change in LATS-R composite scores for all teachers and seems to
demonstrate growth on Norah’s part over the course of the intervention period. When her
composite score is disaggregated by construct, details are more noticeable. Norah’s sub-
scores in Rights and Privileges and Assimilationist/Exclusion both decreased by two
points from pre- to post-intervention. Notable, however, is that the difference between
Norah’s pre- and post-intervention composite scores can be largely attributed to the
change in the sub-score for Aesthetic Caring, which decreased by five points. The
changes represent that Norah moved toward holding views that are more favorable
toward cultural and linguistic diversity.
144
However, Norah’s sub-score in the Responsibility/Culpability construct increased
by two points, indicating a move in the opposite direction and towards less favorable
views and dispositions toward cultural and linguistic diversity and working with EL
students. Nevertheless, Norah’s composite score decreased overall from pre- and post-
intervention administrations of the LATS-R survey. This change is consistent with other
changes documented in statements made at different points in the study as well as
Norah’s observed teaching practices. Figure 6 provides a visual representation her
changes in LATS-R survey scores (Appendix).
Changes in Norah’s teaching practices over time. Over the course of six
months, some changes were observed in Norah’s teaching practices. During the initial
classroom observation 69 instances of culturally responsive teaching practices and/or
instances of EL scaffolding were observed. This number is much higher than that of other
teachers during the same time interval. During Norah’s mid-intervention classroom
observation, 75 instances were documented—a modest gain. By the post-intervention
classroom observation, the number increased again to 93 instances. Thus, a steady
increase was observed from pre- to post-intervention, Norah’s frequency counts
increased by approximately one-third (Table 13 and Figure 12, Appendix).
During the post-intervention exit interview, Norah was asked what she considered
as she planned for her classroom activities that she did not before the study, and she
easily elaborated. In the previous teacher focus groups Norah repeatedly expressed that
engaging in professional development activities focused on culturally and linguistically
responsive instruction were not relevant for her because her students were too young.
145
However, by the end of the study, she came to consider how the age of her students
factored into her lesson planning and teaching practices:
Since mine are smaller, I could actually, I could actually brainstorm more to see
the kinds of activities that I’m going to do with them to make sure they’re age
appropriate. And maybe they could, I don’t know, maybe I could teach them
colors, like more language instead of just, like, English.
Norah felt language was very important in her infant classroom and she often spoke in
both English and Spanish. Some infants came from homes in which languages other than
English or Spanish were the dominant language. Norah shared during her post-
intervention exit interview that through use of the home survey she was learning words
and songs in the home language of infants to provide a more welcoming environment.
The following is an excerpt from the post-intervention classroom observation field notes
where Norah demonstrated growth in incorporating the use of culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practices:
Norah: Are you playing with my hair, pelo? ¿Qué pasó, Genna? Are you all done
eating? ¿Ya acabaste de comer? Don’t put your hands in your mouth. [Norah
picks Genna out of the highchair and brings her to the carpet where other children
are stacking plastic toy rings onto a tower.]
Linda [teacher assistant]: Dos elefantes se balanceaban sobre la tela de una
araña. Cuando veían que resistía fueron a llamar otro elefante…[Linda sings to
one baby. The children playing with Norah, pause for a moment and look up at
Linda. The Spanish song is popular nursery rhyme and translates to: Two
elephants were balancing on a spider web. When they saw it was sturdy, they
went to call another elephant.]
Norah: Sebastian! Let’s put a ring on the tower. What color is that? Orange?
From this example it is evident that Norah had made some progress in providing more
oral language support to the infants in her classroom. While her teaching assistant was far
more verbal with the children, singing and talking with them, Norah did engage older
146
infants in a game on the carpet. This was a notable change for Norah; her teaching
practices were becoming more clearly aligned to her stated beliefs.
By the end of the intervention, Norah realized that there was a lot more she could
do as far as providing language support and modeling communication—verbal and non-
verbal—with the infants. She also recognized that despite the fact that the children were
very young, they were capable and interested in independent exploration, a component of
culturally responsive instruction. To that aim, we brainstormed and collaboratively
planned more sensory-rich lessons during our one-on-one lesson-planning sessions.
Norah became more open in making efforts to incorporate her learning into classroom
activities that considered not only the children’s developmental needs but also taking
note of their interests. By the end of the study, Norah had made some important changes
in the way she worked with the children and their parents.
Case Five: The Infant Teacher, Rosa
Meet Rosa. As a result of downward economic pressures discussed earlier, one
of the infant classes at LP was without a permanent teacher until Rosa came onboard a
couple of months after the professional development intervention began. Rosa had spent
many years as lead teacher and came from another network school operated by the same
non-profit management organization that operated LP. She was instantly well-respected
and embraced warmly by her colleagues. Rosa was hard-working and focused. She
usually spent her lunch breaks browsing educational resources handbooks and material or
lesson-planning. However, on the oft occasion, Rosa entertained calls from her only
daughter, a young woman in her early twenties. When she talked about her daughter, she
beamed with motherly pride. Rosa shared she was tremendously close to her daughter;
147
the rest of her family was either in Florida or back in Ecuador. Rosa had emigrated as
young college-educated woman from her native country. While she took a few courses
and studies English, she expressed culture shock and dismay when she first arrived in
United States about 25 years ago. Rosa, while bilingual, felt more comfortable speaking
in Spanish. Like with Sarah, all of the professional development intervention activities
were conducted in Spanish.
Rosa’s pre-intervention beliefs and knowledge. Due to the fact that Rosa did
not begin the study at the same time as the other teachers, she was interviewed before
participating in the professional development intervention activities. When Rosa was
asked to define culture, she shared:
Cultura para mí es que tenemos diferentes culturas, diferentes países, even, si
cuando hablo español, todavía tienen diferentes modísmos, ¿verdad? Para
hablar. Eso para mí es la cultura. ¿Verdad? La comida, su manera de vestirse.
Culture for me is that we have different cultures, different countries, even, if
when I speak Spanish, they still have different idioms, right? To speak. That for
me is culture. Right? The food, the way they dress.
From this statement, Rosa defined culture in narrow and essentialist terms, not unlike the
other LP teachers. Interestingly, however, Rosa demonstrated nuanced thinking when
she pointed out that even though she spoke Spanish, she understood she was different
from other Spanish-speaking Latinos because the Spanish she used was different. The
other teachers spoke about culture and language as if they were synonymous terms.
When Rosa was asked whether she thought culture and language were the same or
related, she simply stated the concepts were “related.” Because Rosa came from a Latin
American country on another continent, she understood she was a minority within a
minority and it made sense that she did not find that language and culture were
148
synonymous terms. Her personal experience taught her that even though she is from a
Latin American country and speaks Spanish, she is still culturally different.
During the pre-intervention interview, the author described a hypothetical
scenario in which teachers made an effort to get to know their students, families and the
local community and used that as a way make connections to the classroom and learning.
When Rosa was asked whether or not she thought it was a good idea for teachers to learn
more about the lives of their students outside of school as a way of supporting their
students to do better in and feel more connected to school, she said,
Yo digo que sería magnífico. Porque así de esa manera Usted conoce más de la
familia y se enfoca más con el niño, más directo, ¿verdad? De su cultura, qué es
lo que les gusta, qué es lo que no les gusta. Partimos de ahí.
I say it would be magnificent. Because in that way you get know more about the
family and you focus more on the child, more direct, right? About their culture,
what it is that they like, what it is that they don’t like. We go from there.
From this response, Rosa demonstrated her agreement that it is important to get to know
students and their families as a point of departure for teachers in their lesson planning
and instructional practices. She stated that getting to know the student in this way would
be more direct and implies that knowing about a child’s interests could be useful for a
teacher. When Rosa was asked about the role of the family in a child’s education, she
explained that she felt instruction begins at home,
Para mi, el ról de ellos es no solamente mandarlos a la escuela y lo que los
maestros enseñen va ser suficiente. Para mí, el ról de ellos es que también
enseñen en casa. Tomar al niño y comenzar a educarlo en su casa. Como por
ejemplo, enseñándoles sus ABCs, números, leyéndoles.
For me, their [parents] role is not only to send them to school and what the
teachers teach them will be sufficient. For me, their role is that they also teach at
home. Take the child and begin to educate him at home. For example, teaching
them their ABCs, numbers, reading to them.
149
In this response, Rosa indicated that early learning begins at home and lists some family
literacy practices. Rosa’s answers were suggestive of a home-to-school connection and of
recognizing families as sources of knowledge,
Yo respeto cada cultura, cada lengua de papa, ¿verdad?...o de los niños. Me
parece interesante y a veces yo aprendo muchas cosas de ellos también, even que
soy latina. Yo no soy mexicana y palabras que yo no uso, que yo no conozco,
entonces me quedo…me llaman la atención. Como ‘elote.’
I respect every culture, every parents’ language, right?...Or of the children. I think
it’s interesting and sometimes I learn many things from them also, even [though] I
am Latina. I am not Mexican and words I do not use, that I do not know, and then
I’m left…it gets my attention. Like, ‘elote.’
In this example, Rosa pointed out that Spanish-speaking Mexicans use the word elote
instead of maiz, the Spanish word for corn. However in Mexico, elote is a more
commonly used word for corn that comes from the Nahuatl language. More importantly,
however, is that Rosa acknowledges that teachers can learn from the families. Rosa’s
responses during the pre-intervention interview suggest that she has some understanding
and makes use of some culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices even
though she did not use specific terminology. Her own experiences as an outsider or
linguistic minority (i.e. being Ecuadorian) within a larger linguistic minority (i.e. living
and working in Mexican American community in Los Angeles) made her more aware of
cultural and language difference. This awareness allowed her to use her own experiential
background (i.e. activating prior knowledge and experiences) to think reflectively about
connecting to her students and their parents. Doing so is an example of a culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practice.
Rosa’s pre-intervention attitudes toward language and cultural diversity.
Rosa’s pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was 41, which is on the high end of
possible composite scores. These results indicate that Rosa may have held negative views
150
and dispositions toward cultural and linguistic diversity and working with EL students.
For example, even though Rosa’s infant class was comprised entirely of children in the
early stages of oral language development and all of the children are learning to speak a
language other than English at home with English as their second (or third) language at
LP, she indicated strong agreement with statements such as “It is unreasonable to expect
a regular classroom teacher to teach a class who does not speak English” and “Most non-
and limited-English proficient children are not motivated to learn English” as well as
“Having a non-English-proficient student in the classroom is detrimental to the learning
of the other students.” Agreement with these statements seems to indicate Rosa may have
held negative views toward cultural and linguistic diversity. However, when the
composite scores were collapsed by construct, Rosa’s sub-score of five points in
Aesthetic Caring indicated she may have held affirming views of cultural and linguistic
diversity and favorable dispositions toward working with EL children. For example,
Rosa strongly agreed that “Teachers should modify their instruction for their students’
cultural and linguistic needs” and “Regular classroom teachers should be required to
receive pre-service or in-service training to be prepared to meet the needs of linguistic
minorities” and “I would support the government spending additional money to provide
better programs for linguistic-minority children in public schools.”
While Rosa’s composite score was quite high, her Aesthetic Caring sub-score
demonstrated that she also held some positive views with respect to cultural and
linguistic diversity and working with EL children. Rosa seemingly held conflicting ideas
and beliefs about cultural and linguistic diversity and working with ELs. Rosa’s pre-
151
intervention LATS-R survey scores indicated positive attitudes and dispositions and
supported statements during her pre-intervention interview.
Rosa’s pre-intervention observed teaching practices. Unlike the other four
teachers in the study who participated in the professional development activities over the
entire intervention period of six months, Rosa’s participation was limited to three
months. While Rosa participated for half the time as other teachers, she received the
same amount of professional development and in-classroom support. The difference was
that Rosa’s experience was condensed into a short three month time period and, thus, was
more intensive. At the pre-intervention classroom observation, 120 instances of
culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices were counted. This is a very
high number, indicating that Rosa came into the study exhibiting not only a high count
but also wide range of culturally responsive teaching practices.
Although Rosa worked with older infants (one-year olds), she viewed herself as a
teacher with a classroom full of students who demand the full attention of the teachers
and assistants, and deserve of a whole host of learning experiences. Along with singing
and playing, there was language to be learned and many sensory-laden activities to be
explored. For example, Rosa prepared a table activity for the class during the pre-
intervention classroom observation. She put hard spaghetti noodles onto paper plates so
each child would have his/her own bowl of noodles to handle. She knew she had to
provide clear and explicit instructions about handling the noodles or the children would
eat them:
Rosa: No lo podemos comer porque no está cocinado. It’s hard. Está duro. We
can’t eat because it’s not cooked. [She points to the hard spaghetti noodles on
their plates.]
152
Rosa: Now let me show you when it’s cooked. Now you’re going to see the
difference. That’s cooked. See? [She hold up cooked spaghetti noodles and gives
each child their own small bowl of cooked spaghetti noodles.] Look. Smell.
Touch. How does it smell? We’re going to put color. [She hold up a tiny bottle of
red food coloring.] What color is this?
Veronica: Red! Red! Red!
Rosa: Yay, good job, mija! [Literally, daughter in Spanish. Term of endearment.]
This is fooooooood coloring. What color is it now? Mix! Mix, you can mix it with
your hand. Now what color?
Veronica: Red, red.
Rosa: Look! What color is it now? Can you mix? [She helps Samuel mix the
noodles in his bowl with the droplets of red food coloring.] Isn’t it beautiful?
What color is that?
Veronica: Red!
Rosa: Look at your hands! You can eat it if you want. Or you can count the
noodles! One, two, three, four, five! Look, look! This one is loooooong, and this
one is short! [She stretches out the wet noodles onto a sheet of construction paper
on the table.]
Children: One, two, three, four, five. [Repeating after teacher assistants.]
Rosa: Do you want to count your spaghetti? [She counts with Veronica.]
Samuel: Look it! Look it! [He shows Rosa his red-stained hands.]
Rosa (to Katie): How does it feel? Soft? [Katie plays with her red spaghetti].
Look, see! Look, see.
Katie: One…two….three.
Rosa: Wow, Katie! Very nice. You like to play with it? It’s food coloring! You
can eat the spaghetti!
Later, when asked about the purpose of the activity, Rosa explained that she wanted the
children to have opportunity to explore and do “messy” things with their hands. Earlier
in this same observation period, Rosa set up an inquiry table on the yard. It was a warm
day, and she filled up different colored bins with water so children could splash the water
153
and have another sensory experience through water exploration. The children interested
in the inquiry table walked directly to it, and Rosa help them put on aprons:
Rosa: What are you doing? You want to wash dishes? [The children bring kitchen
toys from other areas of the yard and are dunked then in the water-filled bins.]
Okay, but don’t drink the water. It’s dirty! [Rosa makes a yucky face.] This water
is for playing only, not for drinking, okay? Don’t drink it! [The children splash
and laugh.] Is it cold or warm? You like it, mijo? It’s gonna be a hot day. Don’t
drink the water. It’s not for drinking. No para tomar. Samuel, I know you want to
play! [Rosa gives him a little splash.] ¡Se despertó, Samuel! You awake now?
Children: It-sy bit-sy spi-der…
Rosa: The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the water spout, down came the water!
[She gives a little splash.] Si Usted sigue tomando agua, lo voy a sacar de ahí,
okay? [If you keep drinking the water, I am going take you out of there, okay?]
Rosa was energetic and lovingly affectionate with all of the infants while she provided
the children with varying learning opportunities. She planned for fun activities that would
capture the children’s interests and provide ample language support both in English and
Spanish. Rosa may not have known the academic terminology, but she was
demonstrating her use of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices.
Documenting Changes in Rosa’s Beliefs, Knowledge, and Teaching Practices
Changes in Rosa’s beliefs and knowledge. From the pre-intervention interview
to the post-intervention exit interview three months later, Rosa demonstrated some
changes in her views with respect to culture:
Um, aprendí de que cada niño viene con su cultura y de que debemos respetarla y
debemos hacer los trabajos tomando en cuenta de dónde él viene, del
background, ¿verdad? De su lengua también y eso me gusta mucho…hace las
actividades en grupo.
Um, I learned that each child comes with their culture and that we should respect
it and we should do our activities taking into account where the child is from, his
background, right? Their language too and I like that very much, do the activities
as a group.
154
While Rosa previously recognized the importance of learning about the child’s home
language and culture, here she added how she considered this knowledge of home culture
and practices and made use of it for classroom activities. When asked to elaborate on
how her definition of culture was relevant to her work with the families she discussed the
family inventory project in which surveys and cameras were sent home:
Unas de las cosas que hicimos, como fue esa cosa que hicimos cuando mandamos
las cartas a los papas. Entonces, de ahí yo pude darme cuenta de su cultura, de
cómo llegar más al niño, ¿verdad? De una manera más correcta de decir, de
conocer qué hablan, qué comen en su casa, you know, para mí esa es la cultura,
lo que ellos hacen en su casa.
One of the things we did, like when we did, when we sent those letters [home
surveys] to the parents. Then, from there I came to know about their culture, how
to better approach the child, right? From a more correct way to say, to learn what
[languages] they speak, what they eat at home, you know, for me that is culture,
what they do at home.
This quote may not seem to differ greatly from Rosa’s initial views about culture, but she
did come to realize three months later that individual children’s home lives represent
distinct familial and cultural practices. This is an expansion of thinking on Rosa’s part
since she came to express a broader view of culture that is not limited to stereotypes
applied widely to a group, but includes unique home and family practices as well.
When Rosa was asked to share if and how her expanded views influenced her
teaching practices or lesson planning, she provided a poignant example about how
American holidays are experienced and celebrated differently across cultural groups and
families:
Estoy, por ejemplo, ahora que estamos haciendo actividades de Thanksgiving,
que vamos hacer las actividades del pavito, del turkey, estaba hablando con unas
de las mamas y me dijo, ‘Bueno, sí nosotros comemos un poquito de turkey pero
nosotros comemos tamales.’ Nosotros vamos hacer un picture de cómo hacer
tamales. Ese es el plan. Entonces, no solo voy a introducir esto a las personas
que ya comen eso, sino también a las personas que no lo comen. Osea, más
155
cosas que otra gente no lo come. Otra también me dijo que iba a celebrar con
pozole.
I am, for example, now that we are doing Thanksgiving activities, we are going to
do little turkey activities, I was talking to one of the moms and she told me ‘Well,
we do eat a little bit of turkey, but we eat tamales.’ We are going to make
drawings about how to make tamales. That is the plan. So, not only am I going to
introduce to the children who already eat those [tamales], but also to the children
that don’t. I mean, more things that other people don’t eat. Another mom told me
they were going to celebrate with pozole [Mexican hominy soup.]
Rosa’s ideas for planning activities and lessons related to the Thanksgiving holiday were
multicultural in content. Furthermore, she made additional efforts to solicit parent input
by taking into account the diversity of how different families celebrated this distinctly
American holiday. In asking parents about their own cultural practices at home, Rosa was
being culturally and linguistically responsive. Moreover, using this knowledge to develop
and create meaningful activities for her students also demonstrated how she incorporated
the families’ funds of knowledge to enhance all students’ learning experiences by
bringing in multiple cultural perspectives.
Another example of how Rosa made use of the knowledge she gained from
families through the home surveys was that she learned about different parents’
occupations. Rosa asked one of the child’s parents who worked as a dental hygienist to
come to the classroom to provide a demonstration lesson about developing proper oral
hygiene:
Yo pienso que esa idea es fantástica porque como ayer cuando la mama de Nadia
nos trajo tubitos de pasta dental, yo sabía que su mama trabajaba con un
dentista, y fue una buena idea porque yo puse en mi lesson plan. Ella trajo unos
samples grandes y mostró a los niños como cepillarse y a uno le impactó porque
uno me miraba como que nunca había visto un cepillo. Y fue bonito porque yo…y
también les explico cómo a los niños desde chiquitos les limpia la boca. Y
cuando ellos vivían en el campo y no tenían cepillo y se lavaban con una planta
de los dientes de esa manera. Y luego les dimos un cepillo a cada niño para que
comiencen a cepillarse sus dientes y les dimos un floss para que los niños sepan
que es muy importante limpiarse sus dientecitos.
156
I think that’s a fantastic idea because when Nadia’s mom came in yesterday with
little toothpaste tubes, I knew her mom worked with a dentist, and it was a good
idea because I put it in my lesson plan. She brought some big samples [teeth] and
demonstrated to the children how they should brush their teeth and it really
impacted one child because he looked at me like he’d never seen a toothbrush
before. And it was nice because….she also explained how from when they’re
young, she clean their mouths. When she lived in the countryside and didn’t have
toothbrushes, they used a plant for their teeth and cleaned in that way. And then
we gave each child a little toothbrush so they could begin brushing their teeth and
we gave them floss so the children would know that it is very important to clean
their little teeth.
From this statement, it is evident that Rosa felt she learned a lot about the parents that
was not directly related to culture and language. She came to see parents as important
community resources she could tap into and that parents could assist her in providing
better learning experiences for all the children. The lessons and activities she planned for
the class were greatly enriched because she felt more comfortable approaching parents
and soliciting their participation in ways she had not previously considered.
Changes in Rosa’s attitudes about language and cultural diversity. Rosa’s
pre-intervention LATS-R composite score was 41. Her post-intervention score decreased
to 39 for a net change of two points. A decrease in composite score indicated an overall
change in direction toward more favorable and positive attitudes, as well as dispositions
inclusive of cultural and linguistic diversity and working with ELs. The two-point change
may appear very small, but it is important to recall that Rosa’s participation in the study
totaled only three months–half the total length of time compared to the rest of the
teachers. Rosa was hired midway through the intervention and, although she participated
in all of the professional development intervention activities, they were compacted into a
shorter time span to ensure she would complete the intervention at the conclusion of the
study period. Rosa’s experience was more intense compared to the other teachers in the
study because she experienced a shorter intervention period. Rosa’s sub-scores in
157
Responsibility/Culpability decreased by four points and her sub-score in the
Assimilationist/Exclusion construct decreased by two points. There was no change from
pre- to post-intervention in the Rights and Privileges construct.
Together, these changes add up to decrease of six points, which is a large change.
However, Rosa’s sub-score in Aesthetic Caring increased by four points. This point
decrease indicated a change in the opposite direction (i.e. negative) since all the items for
this construct were reverse-coded. At the pre-intervention administration of the LATS-R,
Rosa’s sub-score in Aesthetic Caring represented the single area where she most
demonstrated positive and favorable views and dispositions towards cultural and
linguistic diversity and working with EL children. Yet, in the Aesthetic Caring construct
Rosa moved away from expressing strong agreement with statements that affirmed
cultural and linguistic diversity. Overall, Rosa’s composite score decreased from pre-
and post-intervention administrations of the LATS-R survey. This change was consistent
with other documented statements made at different points in the study as well as Rosa’s
observed teaching practices, which are discussed next. Figure 7 provides a visual
representation of her changes in LATS-R survey scores (Appendix).
Changes in Rosa’s teaching practices over time. During the pre-intervention
classroom observation, 120 instances of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching
practices and scaffolding for EL students were observed. Three months later, during the
post-observation classroom observation, 129 instances were documented. This is not a
large change, and a cursory look at the data seemingly indicates that Rosa grew less over
time when compared to the other four teachers in the study. Again, however, Rosa came
in halfway through the intervention study period. While she received and participated in
158
all of the professional development activities, her experiences were condensed into a
three-month rather than six-month intervention. So Rosa, as a case, represents a natural
experiment. Rosa experienced positive growth—increased her use of culturally
responsive teaching practices—and even this natural experiment demonstrated the
positive effects of culturally responsive coaching and professional development
intervention. Thus, despite the shorter time period in the study, the instances of culturally
and linguistically responsive teaching practices observed at the pre- and post-intervention
classroom observations are consistent highly for Rosa (Table 13 and Figure 8,
Appendix).
Both in the post-intervention exit interview and through working with Rosa in her
classroom, it was evident she made great efforts to incorporate the information she was
learning from the professional development intervention activities, especially the one-on-
one lesson-planning sessions. On several occasions, Rosa mentioned she previously
worked with older children (i.e. three to five years old). She stated working with infants
was somewhat new to her and that, by participating in the professional development
intervention, she realized she needed to focus much more attention on the children’s
developmental and learning needs:
Um, que pueden aprender, que pueden aprender mucho. Porque a veces pensaba
yo, les estoy hablando mucho y no me miran, no me hablan, no me están
atendiendo, pero sí. Osea, al rato yo veo el resultado.
Um, that they can learn, that they can learn a lot. Because sometimes I thought, I
am talking a lot and they don’t look at me, they don’t talk to me, they are not
attending to me, but yes. I mean, later on I see the result.
When asked to elaborate on how she came to know this, Rosa shared she figured that out
through the activities she planned collaboratively with the author, making specific
reference to materials the author provided for her:
159
Rosa: Por las actividades. Especialmente la que me trajo Ud., la del cuadrito
de...
Researcher: ¿De las texturas?
Rosa: Ajá, sí. ¡O! Eso les encantó a ellos. Esa actividad la voy a repetir otra vez.
Even, se van a la puerta y están, ‘Soft…soft…soft.
Researcher: ¿O, sí?
Rosa: Son palabras nuevas que aprendieron.
Researcher: ¡Okay!
Rosa: Y a Carmelita yo le digo, ‘No, gentle…gentle.’
Rosa: Through the activities. Especially the one you brought me, the little square
Researcher: The one with the textures? [Referring to a texture board I put
together.]
Rosa: Uh-huh, yes. Oh! They loved that. I am going to repeat that activity. Even,
they would go to the door [where she posted the texture board] and they’re like
‘Soft…soft…soft.’
Researcher: Oh, really?
Rosa: And Carmelita, I tell her, ‘No, gentle…gentle.’ [Because Carmelita tries to
pull the material off the board.]
In this segment of the conversation, Rosa related an example from a learning activity in
which she introduced a board with materials in a variety of textures. Previously, the
author glued many fabrics onto a foam poster board so the infant teachers—both Norah
and Rosa—could have their own texture boards. The idea originated through
collaborative brainstorming during a lesson-planning session with the other infant
teacher, Norah. She wanted an activity that could be hands-on and exploratory but that
could help the children with oral language development. In this way, the children could
have a sensory-based activity. The texture board presented many fabrics in a variety of
textures and colors. The author purposely cut the fabric into different shapes as well. The
160
texture board severed as an extra-lingual support to the children and provided the teacher
with a way to introduce new words in both languages as the children explored the various
textures, colors and shapes. From the interview exchange, Rosa explained that at the time
she did not know if the children had learned anything and it was later that it became
apparent that the children were expressing interest in the texture board and also
attempting to communicate orally.
During the post-intervention classroom observation, Rosa demonstrated that it
was important to provide fun activities in which the children could engage in exploration,
and opportunities to practice oral communication. She planned lessons and activities
based on the children’s interests and openly encouraged the use of the children’s home
language. During outdoor playtime, Rosa pulled a bottle of bubble solution and a wand
from her apron and began to blow many bubbles. When the children noticed the bubbles
they began running and jumping to catch and touch them,
Helen [student]: Buh-bbles! Buh-bbles! Buh-bbles! [Screams with excitement.]
Rosa: ¡Córrele! ¡Córrele! ¡Córrele, Cristian! Run, Cristian! [Rosa blows more
bubbles and the children continue to run and chase after them.]
Rosa: ¡Ay viene! It’s coming! [Rosa held up Marie, who does not walk yet so she
can touch the bubbles too.] Look, Marie! Boom! [Rosa helps Marie pop the
bubble.] Tú también puedes agarrarla! [You can grab the bubble too!]
Rosa (to Carlita): No, easy. She’s your friend. Gentle. [Carlita pushed Helen.] No,
friend. [Carlita pats Helen nicely.] Good job! Give a hug. Yay! Good job, alright!
Helen: Bubbles! Bubbles! Bubbles! [Reaches to pop them.]
Rosa: Run Danny! [Helen shrieks with delight.]
Rosa: ¡La Helen se vuelve loca! [Helen goes crazy!] Give me five, Cristian!
[Cristian chased down and popped a bubble.] Alright! [Rosa lets children blow
bubbles instead of popping them.]
161
Rosa: Blow, Helen, blow! ¡Sóplale! ¡Sóplale! ¡Sóplale! Sóplale así, mira. [Rosa
demonstrates to the children how to blow on the wand to make bubbles.]
Rosa: Blow, Danny, blow! Sóplale, Danny. Blow it Carlita. Así, mira. Like this,
look!
Rosa: Look, Helen! Get it, get it! Good job! [Helen reaches up to pop bubble.]
Get it, Cristian! Cristian! Cristian! A ver. Let me see your chipotito [referring to
little bump on his head from early tumble on the yard.]
In this activity, the children practiced sharing and taking turns. They were given the
opportunity to both catch and blow bubbles. In the process, they learned new words in
both English and Spanish. Rosa modified her oral language, encouraged the use of the
children’s home language, and provided clear and explicit instructions for participating in
the lesson and interacting with peers. Rosa’s actions during this outdoor activity were all
examples of culturally responsive teaching practices. Some of the children were further
along in their oral language development, yet Rosa encouraged them to speak up.
Furthermore, Rosa took into consideration the development needs of all the children. She
knew that the smallest child in her class, Marie, was not yet walking independently. Rosa
knew Marie could have been excluded, but ensured her participation by holding her up
while the other children blew bubbles. As evidenced by the above field note excerpt
from the post-intervention classroom observation, it was clear that Rosa actively
incorporated many culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices as well as
scaffolding strategies for her EL students. Rosa was consistently culturally and
linguistically responsive with the children in her classroom.
Cross-Case Analysis: Overall Summary of Cases
A detailed narrative account for each teacher case was provided above. After
examining the individual cases independently, the five teacher cases were analyzed
together to draw out similarities, differences, and to relate the cases to each other as they
162
are situated within the same local school context. Taken together, the following analysis
expresses the teachers’ experiences with and responses to the culturally and linguistically
responsive professional development intervention. The five salient themes from the
analysis of the five teacher cases were: 1) a shift in viewing culture as content for lesson
and activities to culture as a context for learning; 2) a shift in passive role of the family in
the child’s education moving toward fostering an authentic home-to-school connection;
3) a shift toward using more culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices
aimed at improving instruction; 4) a shift from narrow school-centered notions of literacy
toward incorporating family literacy practices and; 5) a shift in thinking about their roles
as teachers, moving toward awareness of agency, expertise and self-efficacy. Each theme
is discussed below. Table 14 contains the themes, categories and codes discussed in this
subsection (Appendix). These themes correspond to the five dimensions on the Culturally
Responsive Teaching Practices Continuum. As discussed in the previous chapter,
teachers were scored on all dimensions of the continuum twice—after pre-intervention
data collection and at the end of the study. This was done to determine the level of
growth or change over time. Figures 14 to 19 display all teachers’ pre- and post-
intervention scores on the Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices Continuum
(Appendix).
Culture as a Context for Learning
Given that the author would be working with and documenting the experience of
five unique individual teachers, it was expected that there would be variability in initial
teacher beliefs, knowledge and practices with respect to teaching EL students. Results
from the baseline data for each teacher indicated as much. Most teachers lived near the
163
school in the local community or in communities close by and with similar
demographics. The teachers shared similar cultural and linguistic backgrounds and,
because of this, the author expected that the teachers would have generally positive
beliefs and attitudes towards working with EL students. This was not the case, however.
Instead, teachers initially expressed narrow conceptions of culture (Gutierrez & Rogoff,
2003), tended to focus on the most visible aspects of culture (Erickson, 2004) and held
deficit perspectives (Hollins, 1993) of the children and their families. Across the cases,
all teachers initially expressed essentialist views of culture while they also espoused the
importance of multicultural education and respect for diversity. These seemingly
contradictory views were evidenced through pre-intervention responses on the language
surveys, teacher focus groups, and classroom observations. Triangulation of multiple
sources of data provided documentation reflecting teachers’ early beliefs, knowledge and
practices.
However, as the professional development training project continued, teachers
expressed changes in beliefs and knowledge, which extended into changes in pedagogical
practices. These changes were documented over time through the professional
development training sessions, lesson planning sessions, and mid-intervention teacher
focus groups and exit teacher interviews. In addition, mid- and post-intervention
classroom observations provided further evidence of changes in teachers’ practices. For
example, teachers reported becoming more aware of their own personal biases pertaining
to culture. Initially, most teachers expressed narrow conceptual understandings of
culture. With professional development in which the topic of culture was dissected and
discussed in detail, teachers reflected and expanded on their notions of culture. All
164
teachers, to varying degrees, came to broader definitions of culture that extend to cultural
and family practices. Teachers initially thought about culture in static terms, and they
came to see that culture is dynamic, ever-changing and adaptable to external stimuli.
Over time, all teachers made progress, although this varied by individual, and moved
from viewing culture as subject matter or content to be learned toward viewing culture as
the context in which learning occurs.
Authentic Home-to-School Connection that Affirms Families’ Funds of Knowledge
During pre-intervention focus groups and early training sessions, teachers
implicitly expressed deficit model thinking when they unanimously lamented lack of
parental involvement. During pre-intervention teacher focus groups and early on in the
professional development intervention, teachers articulated parental involvement in terms
of compliance with their requests for participation in school-directed and teacher-
generated activities. Teachers expressed their desire for parental involvement and
support for the classroom, yet none discussed actively seeking to include parents in the
decision-making around the activities in which they requested participation. As a group,
teachers initially viewed parents as having a passive role in the curriculum as supporters
of teacher’s initiatives and classroom goals. Teachers expressed it was their responsibility
to “inform” parents and communicate to them—a unidirectional view that directives
come from school to the home only. Initially, teachers said very little about what the
home should and could bring to the school or classroom.
However, as teachers engaged parents through the adapted family inventory
project—activities related to the home surveys and disposable camera—and through
reflective questioning inherent to training sessions, they came to realize they
165
underestimated the children’s families as a source of rich knowledge and resources and
misunderstood parent’s intentions with respect to their child’s schooling. Small changes
in teachers’ thinking about how to communicate with families and what to do with the
new information about the children’s lives were documented in professional development
sessions, lesson-planning sessions and during the mid-intervention focus groups. During
post-intervention interviews, all teachers and the site administrator expressed a paradigm
shift in thinking about engaging the children and their families. Furthermore, teachers
expressed a new appreciation for fostering a more authentic home-to-school connection,
which they actively worked toward and achieved. They realized that the children’s
families held funds of knowledge and could enrich classroom learning for all students. Of
greatest importance, however, was teachers’ collective sense that they had been
underutilizing family and community resources and ultimately recognized opportunities
to work with parents in mutually beneficial ways. By the end of study, all teachers came
to understand that tapping into the wealth of knowledge and resources began with
cultivating collaborative partnerships with the children’s families. Figure 16 provides a
comparison of pre- and post-intervention changes for all teachers on this dimension of
the continuum (Appendix).
Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices to Improve Instruction
Pre-intervention teacher focus groups and initial classroom observations
documented some use of culturally responsive teaching practices. These varied across the
classrooms, teachers and their assistants. The most evident culturally responsive
teaching practices demonstrated from the beginning of the study was the use of children’s
home language to enhance communication and/or instruction and working to make the
166
classroom environment inclusive of all children. For example, all teachers and assistants
were bilingual in the language spoken by the majority of the children and, because of
this, the author expected and found this specific culturally and linguistically responsive
practice to be widely used by all teachers. Part of making the classroom inclusive of all
students was providing age-appropriate and accessible materials and resources for the
children, which all classrooms did. Nevertheless, a closer examination of how language
and classroom resources were used indicated that teachers could improve by deepening
their understanding of effective instructional practices for working with EL students.
Teachers initially understood that it was important to be culturally and linguistically
responsive to students so that students would feel comfortable, to lower student anxiety
about being away from home, or for students to feel cultural and linguistic validation and
affirmation. However, teachers did not initially make connections between being
culturally and linguistically responsive and improving their teaching practices to provide
effective instruction for all students.
As a result of the individualized PD trainings, teachers’ knowledge increased (i.e.
self-reported during interviews and reflection during PD sessions). Over time, teachers’
learning was documented through their changed teaching practices (i.e. via classroom
observations). For example, although teachers used multiple languages to communicate
with children and their families from the outset of the study, by the end of the study
teachers used language in a more purposeful way, and the teachers themselves reported
becoming more aware of language issues within the classroom. Specifically, teachers
reported recognizing the importance of using language for the explicit benefit of the
children’s learning needs. In addition, by the end of the study, teachers were
167
incorporating a variety of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices and
were also using far more scaffolding strategies for their EL students. The frequency
counts of teachers’ use of culturally responsive teaching practices increased over time.
For all teachers, frequency counts increased from pre- to post-intervention classroom
observations. Table 13 and Figure 8 present a visual representation of the pre- and post-
intervention changes in culturally responsive teaching practices across all teachers based
on the classroom observations (Appendix).
While frequency counts provided evidence for increased use of culturally
responsive teaching practices, they reveal only a portion of the documented changes. The
increases in frequency counts are situated within the larger picture or context of the study
results. Changes in teachers’ beliefs and knowledge and favorable dispositions were also
documented through pre- and mid-intervention focus groups, exit interviews, as well as
the individualized training, lesson and in-classroom support sessions. Figure 17 presents
a comparison of pre- and post-intervention changes on this dimension of the continuum
across all teachers (Appendix).
Incorporating the Use of Family Literacy Practices
During pre-intervention teacher focus groups and classroom observations, there
was little discussion about early literacy practices either in the classroom or at home.
The site administrator made it very clear before data collection began that it was
important for her teachers to provide many classroom opportunities to engage the
children in learning activities that supported and developed literacy. Yet, when teachers
discussed and described their classroom practices and these were observed by the author,
concern for literacy was not expressly evident. Teachers discussed activities in terms of
168
focusing on children’s interests and less on developing pre-literacy skills such as oral
language, concepts about print or phonemic awareness. Teachers did not discuss literacy
practices in the context of family and home nor did they immediately connect family
practices around literacy as relevant to their own in-classroom teaching practices. The
professional development intervention activities integrated literacy development training
and thus family literacy practices were addressed brought under the umbrella of
culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices. Initially, teachers viewed
literacy narrowly as reading and writing activities centering on school activities. Teachers
did not initially recognize that literate practices permeate many aspects of living within a
culture with a written tradition and that this was the case for homes in which language
other than English were dominant.
By the end of the study and after professional development targeting literacy and
helping teachers incorporate the use of literacy practices that children and their families
used at home, teachers provided a more print-rich classroom environment and made
better use of the multicultural and multilingual books already available to them.
Teachers also learned that literacy is more than reading and writing and that listening and
speaking are also part of literacy. Teachers recognized that “literacy is all around us.”
When teachers recognized they could be doing much more in their classroom to support
literacy and could take their cues from everyday experiences, especially at home and in
other languages, teachers became more much creative in the classroom. For example,
teachers brought in old restaurant menus and small note pads to stock their dramatic play
areas so that children could “play restaurant.” Teachers recognized that, even though
many parents were not English-speakers, they could and did actively support literacy at
169
home. In broadening their notions of literacy, teachers became more deliberate about
ensuring lessons included literacy-related components, especially those that parents could
replicate at home in languages in other than or in addition to English (i.e. reading, letter-
writing, making shopping lists, story-telling, engaging in conversations, etc.). Figure 18
provides a comparison of pre- and post-intervention changes on this dimension of the
continuum across all teachers (Appendix).
Increasing Sense of Agency, Teacher Expertise and Self-Efficacy
At the outset of study, teachers indicated they felt they had a limited role in
shaping the children’s early schooling experiences even as they recognized that the
children they worked with spend many hours at LP, the early childhood site. For
example, teachers often referred to instances when they felt parents lacked interest in
school-related activities. Furthermore, teachers expressed frustration when discussing
their efforts to engage the parents and families of the children. Initially, teachers viewed
themselves as lacking authority with decision-making power in their classrooms. During
a professional development session where teachers and their teaching practices were
discussed in relation to culture-sharing groups and cultural practices, teachers were asked
to reflect on and share what others have told them about what early childhood educators
do. All teachers shared that others view them as “babysitters” who “play with kids all
day” rather than teachers who educate, prepare and socialize students for early school
success.
Over time and with the professional development activities, teachers came to
recognize that they expected cooperation and participation in activities and events
without truly considering the experiential backgrounds, interests and needs of the
170
children and their families. Teachers communicated more openly with parents and
actively sought their partnership in brainstorming ideas for family activities hosted at the
school site. As teachers began to express sincere interest in learning more about children,
their families and home life, parents reciprocated and became more involved with their
child’s education, as evidenced by increased participation in family friendly events and
activities. By the end of the study, teachers felt their work validated as parents expressed
their satisfaction and appreciation for the hard work they do. As parents’ interest in
classroom activities and the site administrator provided encouraging and positive
feedback, teachers expressed feeling more empowered to make changes in their
classrooms. At the beginning of the study, teachers indicated they felt there was little
they could to do improve the educational outcomes of the children they worked with
because of the lack of parent cooperation. In effect, they shifted responsibility to parents
rather than take the initiative to create a sense of possibility for what each new day at
school could represent.
By the end of the study, teachers became more aware of their own expertise and
reclaimed their identity as a classroom teacher rather than “just a daycare worker.”
Teachers took more pride in their work (i.e. professionalism) and this was evidenced by
more thoughtfulness during lesson planning and efforts at tapping into community
resources. As they felt validation through positive feedback from parents as well as
commendations from their site administrator, teachers expressed feeling more confident
about their abilities to teach effectively and be more culturally and linguistically
responsive to the needs of all their students. Figure 19 presents a comparison of pre- and
171
post-intervention changes on this dimension of the continuum across all teachers
(Appendix).
Moving Toward the Discussion of the Findings

In this chapter, findings from the case study were presented and were organized
around answering the study’s two research questions which centered on learning about
teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and practices with respect to ELs, and how these changed
over time with culturally responsive professional development about culturally
responsive teaching practices. The chapter began with a descriptive account of the school
context and five cases were presented. The final section of the chapter discussed the
cases together; similarities and differences across the teachers were examined. Finally,
the main cross-case themes were presented and discussed. The next chapter focuses on
extending the discussion of the study findings.

172
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Previously, the topic and purpose of the study were introduced in the first chapter.
The extant research was examined, the relevant literature was synthesized and a gap in
the research was identified in the second chapter. The third chapter detailed the research
design and methodology for the multiple-case study. Chapter four presented the study
results. This chapter provides a discussion of case study findings, situates and connects
these findings to existing literature in the field, suggests relevant implications and
concludes with some final remarks.
Summary of the Findings
The multiple case study was designed and conducted for the purpose of answering
its two research questions which centered on learning a) what early childhood teachers’
beliefs, knowledge and practices were with respect to teaching English learners and b)
how these early childhood teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and practices would change over
time with a culturally responsive model of coaching and professional development that
addressed culturally responsive teaching practices. The questions are interrelated, as the
latter cannot be answered without asking the former. After designing and implementing a
customized professional development intervention, documenting the change over time,
triangulating the data, the research questions were answered and the study’s purposes
were fulfilled.
Learning about teachers’ initial beliefs, knowledge and practices. In
answering the first research question, it became evident that teachers did not have a
nuanced understanding of culture and cultural practices. The lack of understanding was
largely rooted in the fact that they held deficit perspectives. Since teachers started out
173
with deficit orientations, simply matching teachers and students by race/ethnicity and
language did not seem to be and was, ultimately, not sufficient condition to guarantee
that teachers used culturally and linguistic responsive teaching practices with their
students.
According to Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien and Rivkin (2005) in their Texas study on
the market for teacher quality, found that teacher-student matching by race/ethnicity has
positive effects on student achievement. The researchers used a value-added approach
whereby student achievement gains were used to estimate the teacher value-added
(Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien & Rivkin, 2005). Hanushek and his colleagues (2005)
demonstrated that African American teachers were disproportionately matched with
African American and Latino students and that, regardless of whether or not student fixed
effects were included in the analyses, African American teachers tended to be more
effective with minority students (Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien & Rivkin, 2005). Specifically,
Hanushek and his colleagues (2005) found that African American students who had both
a White and African American teacher performed better (compared to their classmates)
during the year in which they had a teacher of their own race/ethnicity. Nevertheless, the
authors posited that “unmeasured characteristics” of the students tend to be correlated to
teacher race/ethnicity and also recognize that a study limitation was that it was not
possible to determine the “underlying mechanism” behind the gains achieved through
race matching (Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien & Rivkin, 2005). Thus, while it appears that
there is a correlation between race matching and student achievement, the quantitative
study could not determine how these gains were achieved. In addition, the Hanushek
study did not address language factors.
174
The purpose of the present study provided insight into how race-matching may
play a factor in student achievement. The purpose of the present study was to determine
if teachers would incorporate the use of culturally responsive teaching practices over time
with culturally responsive coaching and professional development. The present study did
not measure student outcomes. However, given the pre-intervention data, it was clear that
race-matching alone proved an insufficient condition for using culturally responsive
teaching practices that could have a significant impact on student achievement. This is
discussed in a later section of this chapter.
Teachers also expressed views that characterized parents as benignly neglectful
and/or ignorant and teachers conflated parental involvement with compliance. Teachers
held low expectations for parent participation while simultaneously lamenting the lack of
parental engagement in classroom activities. Furthermore, when teachers discussed the
“home-school connection,” what they actually described was a unidirectional relationship
between schools and families: school-to-home only. Teachers did successfully employ
limited use of some culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices but did not
connect these to improving instruction. While teachers viewed being culturally and
linguistically responsive as necessary for creating a welcoming classroom environment,
they did not see culturally responsive instruction as means for enhancing student
learning. What was clear from early encounters with the teachers was they did not see
themselves as powerful change agents in the classroom or recognize how much decision-
making power they had, even as the site administrators and parents expected them to use
it for the benefit of the all the children. Teachers did not express using their own
experiential backgrounds as a useful resource for their teaching practices. Hence, it was
175
unsurprising that they would not immediately connect how learning about students and
families’ collective funds of knowledge was relevant to them as teachers.
How teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and practices changed over time.
Answering the second research question required collecting multiple forms of data to
document individual change within a case as well as to use measures to compare across
cases. As previously discussed, five main themes became salient and each can actually be
characterized as shifts in knowledge, beliefs and practices. First, teachers expanded their
understandings of culture and cultural practices—there was a shift from viewing culture
narrowly as content matter to be learned to perceiving culture as context in which
learning is situated. Second, as teachers gained a more full appreciation for families’
collective funds of knowledge, they moved away from seeing parents from a deficit-
oriented perspective. This shift in perspective allowed teachers to see parents as valuable
partners available for collaboration. Thus, authentic home-to-school connections could be
cultivated. Third, as teachers learned more about culturally and linguistically responsive
teaching practices through the professional development intervention activities—
especially the family inventory project—they became more adept at planning and
delivering lessons and activities with specific objectives that address student learning
needs by using culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices. Fourth, as
teachers broadened their views of literacy—listening, speaking, reading and writing—
they shifted away from the notion that literacy is a school domain only. Furthermore,
they recognized that literacy-related activities were not exclusive to any one language but
can encompass a wide variety of activities in many languages. This shift in perspective
allowed teachers to think more creatively about incorporating family literacy practices
176
into the classroom to support the literacy development of all children. Fifth, teachers
experienced a large shift in thinking about their own agency, expertise and self-efficacy.
Teachers initially felt a lack of power and sense of helplessness, but, over time, expressed
positive changes—an increasing sense of agency, expertise and self-efficacy.
Teachers held varying sets of beliefs and knowledge around working with English
learners and these shaped their pedagogical practices. The baseline data for each teacher
differed and each teacher responded to the professional development intervention as an
individual. Results were not expected to be uniform across all teachers, but progress,
albeit uneven, was documented and all teachers experienced positive changes in their
beliefs, knowledge and practices. Moreover, changes in teacher practices were most
noticeable among those who embraced the personalized coaching, support and feedback.
While all teachers used at least some culturally and linguistically responsive teaching
practices before the professional development intervention, the greatest changes were
observed in teachers who expressed the most interest in the professional development
training, demonstrated a willingness to try new things and were receptive to working
collaboratively with the research team. Without building rapport and gaining trust among
the teachers and assistants, very little progress in the way of changing pedagogical
practices would have been made.
Relating Study Findings to Existing Literature and Research in the Field
The study findings relate and build on the previous literature developed and
research conducted in the field. Since the literature drew on three distinct bodies of
work, the connections are similarly presented. First, the study findings are discussed in
terms to their relation to conceptions of culture and culturally responsive pedagogies as
177
they are situated within the sociocultural and social constructivist theories of knowing,
teaching and learning. Second, the study findings are connected to what is currently
known in the field about effective teacher professional development. Third, the study
findings are situated within the specific research context of early childhood literacy and
education. Lastly, the study findings are connected to the larger question of addressing
the academic needs of young EL students and the teachers that work with them and how
in this study fills a current gap and bridges these three strands of research.
Connecting to work on culture and culturally responsive pedagogies. The
contextualized learning approach used in this professional development intervention
affirms current understandings about culture and how we learn about it. Early on in
working closely with the teachers—from the pre-intervention focus groups before
teachers engaged in any professional development intervention activities—it became
evident that their understandings about culture were narrow. The teachers’ conceptions
of culture were outwardly focused on its most tangible aspects. This resonated with
Erickson’s work on culture in educational practices discussed early in the literature
review in chapter two. Erickson rightly surmised that
When we essentialize culture, assuming that all persons in a given social category
are culturally similar and focusing on unitary cultures of various Others without
reflecting our own cultures and their diversity, we open a Pandora’s box of
opportunity for negative attribution (p. 43).

Teachers expressed essentialized conceptions of culture even as they espoused the
importance of cultural diversity and “being multicultural.” Yet teachers talked about
multiculturalism from a deficit-oriented perspective. Midway through the study, it
became clear that, to ensure teachers would come to see the value in going deeper in
exploring ideas and concepts about culture, the professional development intervention
178
activities would need to address conceptions of culture. The author discussed culture in a
very different way than the teachers conceived and understood it. When teachers were
asked during mid-intervention if their view and definitions of culture had changed since
the beginning of the study, their responses indicated that they had not changed much.
After three months of intensive professional development about culturally responsive
teaching practices, funds of knowledge, and the home-to-school connection and guiding
teachers with the family inventory project, teachers did not understand how learning
about families’ lives outside the classroom related to culture or their instruction in the
classroom. At this point in the study, teachers thought they were affirming cultural
diversity and implementing multicultural education because they celebrated cultural
holidays with ethnic food and had bilingual books and multicultural dolls in their
classrooms. For the teachers, addressing culture in the classroom was not a matter
directly related to student learning and instruction beyond making children “feel
included” and “comfortable.” Teachers grappled with the idea that learning about the
children’s families would be helpful to them beyond learning about the child’s interests,
which they did value because it helped them come up with ideas for fun classroom
activities. The second half of the professional development, if it was going to get teachers
to expand their notions of culture beyond stereotypes and toward learning about
individuals, needed to get teachers to really understand funds of knowledge and expand
their conceptions of culture to include cultural and family practices.
Teachers experienced cognitive dissonance as the differences between the
purpose of participating in a professional development initiative about culturally
responsive teaching practices and their ideas about multicultural education became more
179
pronounced. Culturally responsive teaching practices and multicultural education are
often conflated. While they are related and both are rooted within sociocultural and social
constructivist theories, they are not exactly the same thing. Culturally responsive
pedagogies are concerned with activating and making use of students’ experiential
knowledge and experiences to bridge academic learning so that students experience
wider academic success. Culturally responsive teaching practices are the tools that
culturally and linguistically responsive teachers use to bridge academic content and
enhance student learning. As discussed in chapter two, the most prominent scholars
associated with culturally responsive pedagogies, such as Ladson-Billings, Gay, Villegas
and Lucas, also work from a critical perspective, embracing critical consciousness.
Multicultural education centers on promoting cultural diversity and a broadening of the
curriculum and schooling. Furthermore, multicultural education goes beyond being
critical and moves toward creating an educational landscape in which teachers use
emancipatory pedagogies with the goal of transforming society. Unfortunately,
multicultural education is narrowly understood as the teaching about cultures, and this
tends to create moves in the opposite direction (Erickson, 2004). In perhaps well-
intentioned attempts at expanding and accepting a wider embrace of cultural diversity,
racist stereotyping and exotifying cultural otherness are perpetuated (Erickson, 2004).
The cursory treatment of cultural diversity and the reductionist views of culture do not
promote deep cultural understandings on which societal change can be built. Fortunately,
by the end of the study teachers broadened their cultural understandings to see that
culture was not necessarily subject matter or topics to be taught but rather a context in
which learning is situated.
180
Connecting to teacher professional development research. This study adds to
the body of literature because it focused uniquely on teacher outcomes rather than
focusing on teacher-student experiences with culturally responsive pedagogies. This
study fills a current gap in the research. Previous works have taken a descriptive
approach to documenting teacher-student interactions while also connecting exemplary
descriptions of culturally responsive teaching to student outcomes. However, there are
few empirical studies in which teachers’ use of culturally responsive teaching were
directly linked to student achievement. Before this study, there was little work that
examined the degree to which teachers learn through explicit professional development
training how to use culturally responsive teaching practices—studies largely described
how some exemplary teachers used it with their students. The literature in the field
lacked detailed documentation on how teachers incorporate the use of culturally
responsive teaching practices in response to targeted professional development
addressing culturally responsive instruction, and this study adds to the body of teacher
professional development research by taking the first steps in doing so. To that point,
Opfer and Pedder’ (2011) recently conducted a literature synthesis bringing together
many strands of teacher professional development practices to build a framework around
conceptualizing teacher professional learning. They suggest that, to better understand
teacher learning, education researchers must adopt methodological practices that take a
holistic approach to studying the dynamics and complexity of interacting factors that
affect teacher learning by combining quantitative and qualitative modes of inquiry (Opfer
& Pedder, 2011). This study was a step in that direction.
181
The study is also unique because it drew on current understanding about effective
teacher professional development. Palardy and Rumberger (2008) summarized that
effective professional development: is sustained, concentrates on improving instruction,
provides active learning opportunities, is done in interactive environment among
teachers, and provides teachers feedback regularly. The professional development
intervention was designed with these research-based best practices. The study findings
affirm what is known about effective teacher professional development especially as it
relates to the use of coaching and mentoring. Furthermore, this study is unique because
the professional development intervention drew on culturally responsive pedagogies
research to create a professional development model that took a culturally and
linguistically responsive approach to training teachers to be use culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practices. Previous research developed several
definitions of culturally responsive pedagogies through the work of Ladson-Billings,
Gay, Villegas and Lucas. On the other hand, two operationalized models—The Five
Standards of Effective Pedagogy (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton & Yamaguchi, 2000) and The
SIOP Model (Echevarria, Vogt & Short (2008)—developed validated measures and
tested effectiveness on student outcomes. This study builds on the body of work on
culturally responsive pedagogies by drawing on Lucas and Villegas’ (2002) conceptual
framework and definitions. Like the work of Tharp and his colleagues and Echevarria
and her colleagues, this study operationalized a model of culturally responsive pedagogy
and, instead of focusing on student outcomes, it documented the process and impact of
providing teachers with professional development about culturally responsive teaching
practices (i.e. content of the professional development intervention) by modeling and
182
using these same instructional practices with the teachers (i.e. approach of the
professional development intervention).
Connecting to early childhood literacy research. As previously mentioned in
the literature review, studies in early childhood educational settings represent the
intersection of scientific research, basic human development and public education
(Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, & Thornburg, 2009). Thus, the preschool setting provides
fertile ground for innovative studies where researchers can apply theory-driven principles
such as designing a unique culturally responsive coaching model of professional
development, as is done in this case. Research on culturally responsive pedagogies has
predominantly focused on older children and adolescents, leaving out the youngest
students and the teachers who work with them. Early childhood research is increasingly
focused on multicultural education, however. Work on emergent and family literacy
practices in the field has focused on younger students from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds (Duke & Purcell-Gates, 2003; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Yaden et al.,
2000). This study extends the work of these scholars in explicitly addressing family
literacy practices in professional development for early childhood teachers by
demonstrating that incorporating the use specific family literacy practices is a way to
promote authentic home-to-school connections between schools and families since it
promotes and affirms families’ collective funds of knowledge. By incorporating family
literacy into professional development intervention activities, the study findings indicated
that teachers expanded their notions of literacy to include family literacy practices. They
also realized that doing so is another example being culturally and linguistically
183
responsive to students and their families in ways that support academic learning and
instruction both in and outside of the classroom.
Taken together, the study relates to three distinct bodies of literature that did not
previously overlap and created bridge where they meet to respond to the important issue
of supporting teachers to provide effective instruction to young EL students. Young EL
students and the teachers who work with them have not been on the receiving end of
much professional development training. The training that early childhood teachers have
access to does little to prepare them to work with and engage young ELs and their
families in ways that move beyond cultural and linguistic affirmation to help teachers
improve their instruction. The findings from this study affirm what is collectively known
and build on work previously by scholars deeply concerned about improving the
education of culturally and linguistically diverse students, especially EL students and the
teachers who work with them.
Limitations of the Study
Great efforts were made to ensure that all foreseeable issues related to the study
had been carefully considered. Because no one study can be the definitive authority on
any one issue, all studies inherently have limitations. Limitation or critiques that can be
made of this case study are that it is rather small, it is explorative and/or descriptive in
nature and it is not longitudinal. A major critique of case study research methodology is
that findings from such research lack statistical generalizability—however, arriving at
statistical generalizability is not the purpose of case study research. Rather, findings from
this case study may provide analytic generalizability (Yin, 2009). The purpose of this
multiple case study is to gain an understanding of how five specific teachers of young
184
ELs at a specific Los Angeles area early childhood education center implemented
changes in their instructional practices as a response to participating in professional
development intervention addressing culturally responsive teaching practices. Given that
there are many similarly situated teachers working in urban contexts with EL students,
the findings from this study do provide practical significance.
In addition to general limitations of case study research, there are also limitations
to the study related to the specific methods used. For instance, one methodological
limitation of the study is that the LATS-R surveys were self-reported by the teachers. The
interviews and focus groups conducted allowed for teachers to express their beliefs and
knowledge, which were also self-reported. To provide balance, however, this data was
triangulated by comparing what teachers reported to their instructional practices during
classroom observations. There were multiple observations conducted by different
observers in addition to the research. To provide inter-rater reliability, the group of three
observers (including the author) practiced using the classroom observation protocol
before conducting classroom observations at the research site. In this way, frequency
counting (i.e. tallying codes) across all observers was consistent. However, a limitation is
that the culturally responsive teaching practices continuum used to score the classroom
observations were scored only by the author. The scoring of classroom observations by
different observers on the continuum could strengthen the results. Nevertheless, the
detailed narrative documentation for each teacher case study—specially the Spanish to
English translation of teacher-researcher or teacher-student dialogue documented in
transcript data—provides strong support for the scoring of the classroom observations
185
and validates the study results and findings. To improve on a similar future case study,
however, mechanisms to enhance reliability could be added.
Next Steps: Future Research Agenda
Given the goals and uses of case study research as described above, the next steps
in continuing to pursue this line of research require replicating the professional
development model in a variety of different educational settings and populations.
Furthermore, it is also important to extend the research beyond teachers to examine the
impact of the professional development intervention on measurable student outcomes.
These are discussed below.
Expanding research to a variety of schooling contexts. To build the body of
research on this topic, it is necessary to conduct more research on models of culturally
responsive coaching and professional development across a wider range of contexts and
settings. For example, the setting for the case study presented was at an early childhood
education center situated within an urban and bilingual setting. That setting may not
accurately reflect or translate to the other schooling contexts. Conducting research with
students in different age groups such as in elementary, middle and high schools would
add to the body of knowledge. Students at the elementary levels have different learning
needs than do those in adolescence. In addition to different age groups and school types,
it is important conduct research in schools with different teacher and student populations.
For example, the teachers in this study were all bilingual in English and Spanish and
were of Latino descent. However, not all schools have teachers that mirror their student
populations. It would be important to look at schools in which teachers are predominantly
186
White and their students are not, since this educational context may have wide
applicability across the country.
Furthermore, in the current study the student population served was ethnically and
racially diverse, although the majority of the students were Latino. Another comparison
that could be made is to explore how teachers fare with the professional development
intervention across different groups of EL students. EL students are not a large
homogeneous group—a variety of ethnic/racial groups comprise students from many
linguistic minority groups. In some schools and districts, the EL population may be
diverse with no one dominant group. Much research focuses on Spanish-speaking
students of Latino heritage even though there are far more groups currently served by the
nation’s public school system. The group(s) studied could be adapted to address the
different student demographics across the country. Furthermore, there may be important
distinctions that need to be more clearly delineated between urban and rural school
contexts, including American Indian Reservations. Even though much of the educational
research tends to focus on large urban school districts, the majority of the nation’s
children do not attend schools within these districts. In other words, teachers who work
with non-White and/or EL children not within urban school districts are understudied.
Applying a motivation theoretical framework. In addition to using
sociocultural and constructivist theories as the lens for examining culturally responsive
coaching and professional development models, it could also be instructive to apply
theories of motivation to future studies. One of the resulting themes from the study was
an increasing awareness of teacher agency and professional expertise. Embedded in that
theme is self-efficacy, an important motivation construct that could be applied to research
187
on teachers and students. Self-efficacy was discussed as part of teacher change
experienced, but this motivation construct was not thoroughly examined. In addition,
exploring issues of motivational interest could provide new insights into professional
development training and have an impact on teachers’ ability to work with students.
Connecting teacher motivation and self-efficacy to professional development could be
important for determining the effectiveness of professional development in changing
teachers’ instructional practices. Furthermore, linking teacher professional development
to student motivation and/or student achievement of ELs could extend the research in this
field.
Including measures of student outcomes. In addition to examining the
professional development intervention across a wide range of contexts and with different
theoretical lenses, it is also important to move the research beyond its ability to
demonstrate that change on the teacher level is possible. The next step is to tie the
changes teachers make in their instructional practices to specific and measurable student
outcomes. Ultimately, the purpose of providing teachers with culturally responsive
coaching and professional development is so they provide improved instruction to
culturally and linguistically diverse student populations, especially those classified as EL
students. Two important student outcomes that should be examined more closely are
academic motivation and student achievement. Academic motivation is important in so
far as it is related to student learning. Being able to demonstrate that a culturally
responsive approach to professional development that leads to culturally responsive
instruction can positively affect student achievement would provide evidence of the
effectiveness of culturally responsive coaching and professional development for
188
teachers. In addition, linking specific student achievement indicators directly to teachers’
use of culturally responsive teaching practices would provide stronger evidence for its
use for training both pre- and in-service teachers. On the basis of this kind of robust
research, school leaders and administrators would be able to soundly make the changes
necessary to incorporate culturally responsive models of coaching and professional
development training for teacher candidates enrolled in teacher preparation programs or
teachers working at schools.
Building on the current study may yield the ability to answer questions about the
effect of culturally responsive teaching practices on students’ academic motivation, how
culturally responsive instruction and student achievement are related, and the conditions
and circumstances under which culturally responsive teaching practices positively affects
student achievement. Incorporating students and student data into the research design
can answer these types of questions. Quasi experimental and experimental designs
would be helpful for expanding the scope of the research of the multiple-case study
presented in this document.
Diversify individual researcher factors. Another issue with this case study is
that it was conducted by one researcher who was responsible for providing the
professional development intervention. Future research would need to examine multiple
professional development providers. It is not possible to discern how the researcher’s
ethnicity, language, and personal characteristics may affect the relationship between the
researcher and researched and how that may affect study results. It is possible that certain
aspects of the professional development intervention and results had much to do with
189
individual factors rather than explicit and key features of the professional development
intervention design related to either content or approach.
From Research to Practice
Based on the study results and main findings, there are five important
implications for moving from research to practice : 1) a culturally and linguistically
responsive coaching model of PD is a promising approach; 2) same ethnicity/language
does not guarantee for effective instruction; 3) training teachers to be culturally
responsive requires a culturally responsive approach; 4) teachers have their own funds of
knowledge which can be tapped; and 5) effective coaching requires intensive scaffolding.
These are discussed in detail below.
Culturally and linguistically responsive coaching model of PD is a promising
approach. The purpose of providing teachers with such a professional development
initiative was to support effective classroom instruction that improved student learning.
Before professional development can be linked to specific student outcomes, it must first
be determined that the training can help teachers change their instructional practices. The
study findings are encouraging and suggest that a coaching model of professional
development that is culturally and linguistically responsive to teachers’ needs, strengths,
and interests is a promising approach for training teachers to themselves provide
culturally and linguistically responsive instruction to the young ELs they serve.
Same ethnicity and language are no guarantees for effective instruction.
Educators must avoid making assumptions about how teachers relate to students with
whom they share similar cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Teachers of color from
similar socioeconomic status and/or come from the same community—even if bilingual,
190
sharing their students’ home language—are not necessarily equipped to use culturally
responsive pedagogy with their students. Unfortunately, some professional development
and pre-service teacher training implicitly operates from a deficit-oriented perspective in
which students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds are perceived as an obstacle to
overcome rather than as a valuable instructional resource. This deficit perspective
pervades dominant discourse about students’ motivations and makes assumptions about
parents’ commitment to their children’s education.
Training teachers to be culturally responsive requires a culturally responsive
approach. Because same ethnicity and language shared between teacher and students
offers no guarantee for effective instruction or that teachers will be culturally and
linguistically responsive to students, professional development training offered needs to
be culturally and linguistically responsive to the participating teachers. All teachers
working with culturally and linguistically diverse students, especially if they are also
classified as ELs, could benefit from professional development addressing culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching practices. However, training teachers to be culturally
responsive requires that the professional development take the same approach. This
means that both the content and the approach of the professional development training
must be aligned. Professional development providers must model being culturally
responsive, employing the strategies and instructional practices that teachers are expected
to implement to ensure teachers will be in a better position to do the same with their own
students.
Teachers have their own funds of knowledge which can be tapped.
Professional development providers must draw on teachers’ funds of knowledge by
191
considering their knowledge, experiences, strengths, abilities, resources, interests and
needs. Teachers have a wide variety of professional and personal experiences they bring
to the profession. Professional development training does not usually consider what
teachers already know about a topic or what they need to know. Too often, professional
development training is prescribed using a top-down approach with little input, feedback
or buy-in from participating teachers. This leads to redundant, irrelevant or ineffective
professional development which teachers rightfully resent and reject. Professional
development providers must acknowledge and recognize that teachers possess a wealth
of collective knowledge that should be used in developing targeted and customized
professional development for the intended audience. Respecting and soliciting teacher
knowledge can also be cost-effective—external professional development training and
associated material resources are often unnecessary. Every school district has access to
effective master teachers who can be tapped to lead teachers to share and try new
effective instructional practices with each other.
Effective coaching requires intensive scaffolding. Professional development
training should include a component of teacher coaching which takes a scaffolded
approach. The level of the coach’s participation and interaction with the teacher must
respond to the teachers’ learning needs. Coaches must support teachers by scaffolding
and modeling the use of effective instructional practices and strategies. As a strong
working relationship (trust) is established, teachers may be more willing to accept
feedback from coaches, engage in reflective thinking, try new ideas and/or make
thoughtful changes in instructional approaches and practices. However, coaching that
remains constant over time may be an ineffective use of resources. As teachers’ sense of
192
agency and self-efficacy increases and corresponding positive changes are documented
via improved instruction and increased student learning, coaching should adapt in
response. How that happens should be determined together by the coach and teacher.
Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the relationships among the coach’s level of
participation and the levels of teacher trust and agency (Appendix).
Challenges of Implementing Culturally Responsive Professional Development
There may be a couple of challenges implementing the type of culturally and
linguistically responsive professional development presented in this study. These
challenges are primarily related to sustainability and scalability—two important factors
tied to school and/or district resource allocation. These are discussed below.
Sustainability. Providing professional development that is sustainable over time
presents a tremendous challenge, as the cost associated with doing so may be prohibitive.
Providing coaching and mentoring of teachers as a component of professional
development can be expensive and as economic uncertainty creates unstable funding
sources in education, such on-site coaching and mentoring are scaled back or cut
altogether. Without commitment to coaching/mentoring of teachers from school leaders
and protected financial support, these resources are not guaranteed year to year. Thus,
whatever positive changes are gained or increased productivity and collaboration among
teachers and coaches are improved can easily be negated by a change in budgetary
funding priorities. Reducing teacher support resources greatly undermines staff morale
and shortchanges students.
While the professional development intervention that was implemented in this
study centered on much individualized training for each participating teacher, this was in
193
large part due to scheduling conflicts at the research site. Therefore, it is quite possible to
take a similar approach and work with teachers in small groups or grade levels instead of
on a strictly individual basis. Some components of the professional development
intervention—such as the training and lesson-planning sessions—could be done in small
groups, whereas in-classroom support and coaching could be done individually for
shorter time periods. For example, many schools already shorten one school day per
week for faculty meetings and professional development. These weekly meetings could
be reserved for the purposes related to the type of professional development discussed in
the study. In addition, this kind of professional development training would not
necessarily require additional funding for external consultants or expensive materials.
Many schools already employ coaches and specialists. Even those that do not have lead
teachers capable of implementing a professional development initiative such as the one
discussed in the study. Such modifications could greatly mitigate concerns over cost.
The professional development intervention in this study included accommodating
the teachers’ language preferences because it was absolutely necessary for this
population. Two teachers in the study would not have been able to benefit from
professional development activities conducted in English. Thus, providing a language
accommodation was critical to the teachers’ ability to access the content and participate
in the intervention activities in a meaningful way. In other words, providing the
intervention in two languages to the early childhood educators was an example of being
culturally and linguistically responsive to teachers’ learning needs, much like we expect
teachers to do for their EL students. However, in a K-12 public school setting, it is much
more likely that providing professional development in languages other than English may
194
not be required. Nevertheless, it is still important to consider the experiential
backgrounds of the teachers, and providing the professional development training and
coaching in English will not likely make the professional development less effective.
Scalability. Another potential challenge of providing culturally responsive
professional development is related to the scalability of professional development
intervention as described in this study. School and/or district leaders may need to
implement the professional development initiative in a few schools before moving
forward with a wide-scale implementation process. Given that the premise of the
professional development is that both the content and approach should be culturally and
linguistically responsive to meet teachers’ learning needs, school leaders could expect
implementation to vary across schools. Uniformity or strict adherence would not be
ultimate goals, as this would run contrary to the flexibility required to provide culturally
and linguistically responsive coaching and professional development to a wide range and
cross-section of teachers and schools. Furthermore, requiring uniformity across schools
would, in effect, deny the knowledge base that a group of teachers and leaders within
each school community possesses. Providing effective culturally responsive professional
development means the providers should draw on the collective funds of knowledge of
the staff at each school rather than dismiss it. Teacher input, feedback and buy-in at
multiple points during professional development delivery—as documented and evidenced
by this study—are required for its successful implementation and sustainability.
In addition to addressing the in-service professional development and training
needs of teachers, the issue of how pre-service teachers are educated and training must
also be raised. As more studies are conducted and the body of research on culturally
195
responsive coaching and professional development models find that these types of
interventions are effective for improving educational outcomes for EL students, then
teacher preparation programs across the country may have to reconsider how they train
their teacher candidates. Research documenting the successful implementation of
culturally responsive coaching and professional development models in a variety of
educational settings and contexts would have implications across teacher education
policy efforts. Namely, how teachers—whether pre-service or in-service—are trained
and supported would necessitate wide-scale change. Collaboration among teacher
preparation programs, schools/districts, and educational researchers would improve
knowledge in the field and help bridge the gap between research and practice. Ensuring a
seamless transition between what pre-service teachers are taught and how in-service
teachers are supported could greatly improve the delivery of instruction that EL students
receive. A culturally and linguistically responsive approach to coaching and professional
development for teachers could serve as bridge between what teachers already know and
need to know about their students so that are better equipped to provide effective
instruction so that all students learn and achieve at high academic levels.
Implications for Policy
Previously, chapters discussed what was learned by implementing a theory-based
culturally responsive approach to coaching and professional development and the
practical implications. Moving toward a discussion about the related policy implications
is necessary in light of the potential challenges to implementing culturally responsive
coaching models of professional development for teachers outlined above. There are
196
several implications for policy at the micro, and macro-levels and these are discussed
below.
Policy implications the local school/district level. The study’s findings suggest
that a culturally responsive coaching model is a promising approach for supporting
teachers who work with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Moving toward
providing teachers with the intensive support suggested by implementing a culturally and
linguistically responsive model of professional development requires making big and/or
difficult changes. District administrators, school leaders and/or classroom teachers would
not necessarily welcomed some of these changes. The main challenges stem from
connecting research to practice.
For example, school leaders must first agree that there is great value in teachers
taking a culturally and responsive approach to working with students. School leaders also
need to understand that training teachers to be culturally responsive requires a culturally
responsive approach to professional development and teacher support. Thus, school
leaders must provide the institutional support and financial commitment to ensure policy
initiatives are carried out at the school level. To that aim, coaches, specialists and lead
teachers must know how to operationalize and effectively provide the professional
development model. In other words, the professional development providers must be able
to model how to be culturally and linguistically responsive to the teachers. Moreover, the
professional development providers must acknowledge that teachers have their own
funds of knowledge and be willing to draw on them. Like school leaders, teachers must
also agree to participate in a culturally responsive coaching model of professional
development. With school-wide support, the professional development initiative has the
197
potential to be highly effective and documenting school progress through action research
efforts could be instructive for other schools and districts. This professional development
initiative can also be incorporated into existing data-driven decision-making frameworks
and accountability mechanisms although it may take more evidence to convince school
districts and leaders that promoting culturally and linguistically responsive teaching
practices improves classroom instruction and demonstrates significant positive changes
in student achievement.
Policy implications at the larger state/federal level. The mismatch between the
nation’s current pool of teachers and the rapidly-changing demographics in the student
population must be addressed. From research, it is widely known that teachers feel
underprepared to work with students from cultural and linguistic backgrounds that differ
from their own. At this time, there is no compelling reason to believe that the teacher
pool will be changing significantly. Thus, it behooves us as a nation—educators,
researchers and policymakers as well as community stakeholders—to have serious
conversations about what it will take to improve educational outcomes for all students.
The larger economic implications of an undereducated and underprepared workforce are
already becoming apparent, yet there is little discussion around addressing the need for
expansive and dramatic efforts around supporting the national teacher workforce.
As educators move toward implementing the use of common standards, perhaps
now is also the time to deepen the conversation about how to effectively support teachers
working with increasingly diverse student populations. English learners are no longer
concentrated in the Southwest or clustered in major urban districts. The large and
increasing numbers of EL students are beginning to overwhelm the ability of school
198
districts to address their learning needs. States within the South and in the rural Midwest
are now beginning to experience what other regions have long been struggling to address.
Educating EL students successfully will have increasingly important economic
implications for the future. Thus, finding effective solutions and implementing them
should correspondingly rise to top of national education concerns.
Concluding Remarks
The study presented contributes to the body of knowledge in the field of
education research in which culturally responsive pedagogy, early childhood literacy and
teacher professional development intersect. Specifically, the study serves as a starting
point for future large-scale studies that could inform future education policy efforts and
promote evidence-based instructional practices. If we are to truly address the needs of
English learners and effectively support the teachers work with them, the education
researcher community must develop creative solutions that increase literacy access,
knowledge, and participation of all students. Given the lack of attention on early
childhood educators working with English learners and that they generally received little
to no in-service professional development training, the study presented herein stands
alone as an important first step to developing a broader research agenda in this high-need
area.

199
REFERENCES
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-language
Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-minority Children
and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bell, Y. R. & Clark, T. R. (1998). Culturally relevant reading material as related to
comprehension and recall in African American children. Journal of Black
Psychology, 24(4), 455-475.
Brenner, M. E. (1998). Adding cognition to the formula for culturally relevant
instruction in mathematics. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 214-
244.
Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1994). Language attitudes of teachers scale (LATS).
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(1), 227-231.
Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the
classroom? New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the
assessment of teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Human Resources, 41(4),
778-820.
Comber, B., & Nichols, S. (2004). Getting the bigger picture: Regulating knowledge in
the early childhood literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
4(1), 43-63.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In California State Department of
Education, Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework
(pp. 3-49).Sacramento, CA: CA Department of Education.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the
crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction.
In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education:
Vol. 2. Literacy (2
nd
ed., pp. 71-83). New York: Springer.
Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2009). How
teachers would spend their time teaching language arts: The mismatch between
self-report and best practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 418-430.
200
Domitrovich, C. E., Gest, S. D., Gill, S., Bierman, K. L., Welsh, J. A., & Jones, D.
(2009). Fostering hi-quality teaching with an enriched curriculum and
professional development support: The Head Start REDI Program. American
Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 567-597.
Drucker, M. J. (2003). What reading teachers should know about ESL learners. The
Reading Teacher, 57(1), 22-29.
Duke, N. K. & Purcell-Gates, V. (2003). Genres at home and at school: Bridging the
known to the new. The Reading Teacher, 57(1), 30-37.
Early, D. M., Bryant, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Clifford, R. M., Burchinal, M. R., Richies, S.,
et al. (2006). Are teachers’ education, major and credentials related to classroom
quality and children’s academic gains in pre-kindergarten? Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 21, 174-195.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework
about teachers’ knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
33, 134-176.
Foorman, B. R., Anthony, J., Seals, L., & Mouzaki, A. (2002). Language development
and emergent literacy in preschool. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 9(3), 173-
184.
Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B., Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the
learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-
based inquiry teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 537-553.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research, Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners
in California Schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Educational Policy
Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved on November 20, 2008, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
Geneshi, C., Ryan, S., Ochsner, M., & Yarnall, M. M. (2001). Teaching in early
childhood education: Understanding practices through research and theory. In V.
Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. (Fourth Edition), pp.1175-
1210. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., & Reese, L. (2005). Using mixed methods to Latino
children’s literacy development. In T. Weisner (Ed.) Discovering successful
pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood
and family life (pp.21-46). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
201
Goldhaber, D. & Anthony, E. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed?
National Board Certification as a signal of effective teaching. The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 134-150.
Goldhaber, D. & Brewer, D. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school
teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129-145.
Gomez, M. L., Johnson, A. S., & Gisladottir, K. (2007). Talking about literacy: A
cultural model of teaching and learning untangled. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 7(1), 27-48.
Grissom, J. B. (2004). Reclassification of English learners. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 12(36). Retrieved on November 20, 2008, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n36/
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O’Brien, D. M., and Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for
teacher quality. (Working Paper 11154). Retrieved from National Bureau of
Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11154
Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to
improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
24(2), 297-327.
Harper, C. & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language
learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162.
Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. (2009). English language teacher expertise: The elephant in
the room. Language and Education, 23(2), 137-151.
Hassett, D. D. (2008). Teacher flexibility and judgment: A mutlidynamic literacy theory.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(3), 295-327.
Jacob, B. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The
Future of Children, 17(1), 129-153.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Graham, L., Ocker-Dean, E., Smith, D. L., & Boulware-Gooden,
R. (2009). Do textbooks used in university reading education courses conform to
the instructional recommendations of the National Reading Panel? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 458-463.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M. E., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. L.
(2009). Why elementary teachers may be inadequately prepare to teach reading.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392-402.

202
Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N., Fan, X., Sofka, A., & Hunt, A. (2009). Accelerating
preschoolers’ early literacy development through classroom-based teacher-child
storybook reading and explicit print referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 40, 67-85.
Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Quality of
language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 51-68.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief, Educational
Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.
Kane, T. J., Staiger, D. O., & Geppert, J. (2002). Randomly accountable. Education
Next, 2(1), 57-62.
Kendrick, M., & McKay, R. (2004). Drawing as an alternative way of understanding
young children’s constructions of literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
4(1), 109-128.
Kidd, J. K., Sanchez, S. Y., & Thorp, E. K. (2008). Defining moments: Developing
culturally responsive dispositions and teaching practices in early childhood
preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 316-329.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New
York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Smith, K., E., Assel, M. A., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2006).
Enhancing early literacy skills for preschool children: Bringing a professional
development model to scale. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 306-324.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban
schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
24(1), 37-62.
Lee, C. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African
American high school students skills in literacy interpretation. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30(4), 608-630.
Lieber, J., Butera, G., Hanson, M., Palmer, S., Horn, E., Czaja, C., Diamond, K.,
Goodman-Jansen, G., Daniels, J., Gupta, S., & Odom, S. (2009). Factors that
influence the implementation of a new preschool curriculum. Early Education
and Development, 20, 456-481.
Lucas, T. (2011). Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource
for teacher educators. New York: Routledge.
203
Lucas, T., Villegas, A., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive
teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teacher English language
learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373.
Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and the
development of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5),
475-480.
Moats, L. C. (2009). Still wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 387-391.
Moats, L. C., & Lyons, G. R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language.
Topics in Language Disorders, 16(2), 73-86.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D. and Gonzalez, N. (2001). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory
Into Practice, XXXI, 2, 132-141.
Moll, L.C., & Diaz, S. (1987). Change as the goal of educational research. Anthropology
and Education Quarterly, 18, 300-311.
Moll, L.C., & Greenberg, J.B. (2003). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social
contexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education:
Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociocultural Psychology. (pp.
319-348). New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H. & Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally
relevant pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 41(4), 433-452.
Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and
coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American
Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 532-566.
Odom, S. L., Fleming, K., Diamond, K., Lieber, J., Hanson, M., Butera, G., Horn, E.,
Palmer, S., & Marquis, J. (2010). Examining different forms of implementation
and in early childhood curriculum research. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 25, 314-328.
Ogletree, Q., & Larke, P. J. (2010). Implementing multicultural practices in early
childhood education. National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 7(1), 1-9.
Osborne, A. B. (1996). Practice into theory into practice: Culturally relevant pedagogy
for students we have marginalized and normalized. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 27(3), 285-314.
204
Palardy, G. J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The
importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for
student learning. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 111-140.
Pelayo, I. & Brewer, D.J. (2010). Teacher quality in education production. In P.
McEwan & D. Brewer (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of Education.
Pianta, R. C., Barnett, S. W., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2009). The effects of
preschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with
the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 10(2), 49-88.
Powell, D. R., Steed, E. A., & Diamond, K. E. (2009). Dimensions of literacy coaching
with Head Start teachers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30(3),
148-161.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the “TV Guide:” Relationships between
home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research
Quarterly, 31(4), 406-428.
Purnell, P. G., Ali, P., Begum, N., & Carter, M. (2007). Windows, bridges, and mirrors:
Building culturally responsive early childhood classrooms through the integration
of literacy and the arts. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(6), 419-424.
Reese, L. & Goldenberg, C. (2008). Parental involvement and the academic achievement
of Hispanic students: Community literacy resources and home literacy practices
among immigrant Latino families, Marriage & Family Review, 43(1/2), 109-139.
Reese, L. & Goldenberg, C. (2006). Community contexts for literacy development
Latina/o children: Contrasting case studies. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 37(1), 42-61.
Reese, L., Thompson. S. L., & Goldenberg, C. (2008). Variability in community
characteristics and Spanish-speaking children’s home language and literacy
opportunities. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(4),
271-290.
Reeves, J. (2004). “Just like everybody else”: Equalizing educational opportunity for
English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 43-66.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001) Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook
of Research on Teaching. (Fourth Edition), pp. 905-947. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
205
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement:
Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
Rumberger, R. & Gándara, P. (2004). Seeking equity in education of California’s
English learners. Teachers College Record, 106, 2031-2055.
Saunders, W., O'Brien, G., Hasenstab, K., Marcelletti, D., Saldivar, T., & Goldenberg,
C.(2002). Getting the most out of site-based professional development. In P.
Schmidt & P. Mosenthal (Eds.). Reconceptualizing literacy in the new age of
pluralism and Multiculturalism (pp. 289-320). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (2005). The contribution of settings to school
improvement and school change: A case study. In C. O’Donnell & L. Yamaguchi
(Eds.). Culture and context in human behavior change: Theory, research, and
applications. New York: Peter Lang.
Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by
focusing grade level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective,
quasi-experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 46, 1006-1033.
Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Reading Council.
Souto-Manning, M. (2009). Negotiating culturally responsive pedagogy through
multiculturalchildren’s literature: Toward critical democratic literacy practices in
a first grade classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(1), 50-74.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thomas,
W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz:
University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and
Excellence.
Van Kleek, A. & Schuele, M. C. (2010). Historical perspectives on literacy in early
childhood. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 341-355.
Verdugo. R. R. & Flores, B. (2007). English-language learners: Key issues. Education
and Urban Society, 39(2), 167-193.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walpole, S., McKenna, M. C., Uribe-Zarain, X., & Lamitina, D. (2010). The relationship
between coaching and instruction in the primary grades: Evidence from high-
poverty schools. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 115-140.

206
Walqui, A. (2011). The growth of teacher expertise for teaching English language
learners: A socio-culturally based professional development model. In T. Lucas
(Ed.) Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for
teacher educators. NewYork: Routledge.
Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2005). What teachers need to know about language. In
C. T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know
about language (pp. 7-54). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Yaden, D. B, Jr., Tam, A., Madrigal, P., Brassell, D., Massa, J., Altamirano, L. S., &
Armendariz, J. (2000). Early literacy for inner-city children: The effects of
reading and writing interventions in English and Spanish during the preschool
years. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 186-189.
Youngs, C. S., & Youngs, G. A., Jr. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes
toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97-120.

207
APPENDIX
Table 1: Overlapping Definitions of Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
(Ladson-Billings, 1992)
Culturally Responsive
Teaching (Gay, 2000)
Culturally Responsive
Teachers (Villegas &
Lucas, 2002)
 Belief that all students
are capable of academic
success
 Pedagogy as an art
(unpredictable)
 Teachers as members of
community
 Teaching as way to give
back to community
 Belief in Freirean notion
of “teaching as mining”
not banking (or deficit
model).
 Developing a
cultural diversity
knowledge base

 Hold affirming
views about
diversity

 Are socio-culturally
conscious

 Develop into agents
of change
 Maintain fluid student-
teacher relationships
 Demonstrate a
connectedness with all of
the students
 Develop a community of
learners
 Encourage students to
learn collaboratively and
be responsible for each
other
 Demonstrating
cultural caring and
building a learning
community

 Cross-cultural
communications

 Learn about
students’ lives

 Knowledge is shared,
recycled, and constructed
 Knowledge must viewed
critically
 Teachers must be
passionate about
knowledge and learning
 Teachers must scaffold,
or build bridges, to
facilitate learning
 Assessment must be
multifaceted
 Designing
culturally relevant
curricula

 Cultural congruity
in classroom
instruction

 Embraces
constructivist views
of knowledge,
learning, and
teaching

 Uses culturally
responsive teaching
practices

208
Table 2: Comparing Models of Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
The SIOP Model
Echevarria, Vogt &
Short (2008)
Research-based ESL
Best practices (Genesee,
1999)
EL Student Academic
Success
Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol
(SIOP)—Short &
Echevarria, 1999
Guarino, Echevarria,
Short, Schick, Forbes &
Rueda, 2001
Echevarria, Short &
Powers, 2006
The Five Standards for
Effective Pedagogy
Tharp, Estrada, Dalton &
Yamaguchi (2000)
Vygotsky’s (1978)
Sociocultural theory;
Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD)
Student Academic Success
Standards Performance
Continuum (SPC) Protocol--
Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose
& Tharp, 2002
Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose
& Tharp, 2002
Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal &
Tharp, 2003; Doherty &
Hilberg, 2007
Culturally Responsive
Teachers
Villegas & Lucas (2002)
Critical Paradigm;
Constructivism;
Bourdieu (1986)
Giroux, (1989)
Critical Consciousness
Social Transformation
Student Academic Success

Culturally
Responsive
Teaching
Gay (2000)
Critical Paradigm;
Ladson-Billings
(1994, 1995)
Critical
Consciousness
Student Academic
Success

Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy
Ladson-Billings (1994)
Critical Paradigm;
Freire, (1970)
Ethics of Caring
(Gilligan, 1982,
Noddings 1989, 1991)
Critical consciousness
Student Academic
Success
Cultural Competence

Bell & Clark, 1998;
Brenner, 1998; C. Lee,
1998; O. Lee, 2007
Model
Authors
Theoretical
Framework
Goals
Instrument
Instrument
Validation
Studies
Effectiveness
Studies
(Quantitative)

209
Table 3, Language Attitudes of Teachers Scale-Revised (LATS-R), Flores & Smith
(2008)
Construct
Measured
Item
No.
Statement
Rights and
Privileges
10. Parents of ELLs should be counseled to speak English with their
kids whenever possible.
15. Having a non-English-proficient student in the classroom is
detrimental to the learning of the other students.
8. Non- and limited-English-proficient students often use unjustified
claims of discrimination.
11. The rapid learning of English should be a priority of non-English-
proficient or limited-English-proficient students even if it means
they lose their ability to speak their native language.
16. Too much time and energy is now being placed on
multiculturalism in schools and society.
1. It is unreasonable to expect a regular classroom teacher to teach a
child who does not speak English.
Aesthetic Caring

6. Teachers should modify their instruction for their students’ cultural
and linguistic needs.*
3. It is important that people in the U.S. learn a language that is not
English.*
9. I would support the government spending additional money to
provide better programs for linguistic-minority students in public
schools.*
12. Regular classroom teachers should be required to receive pre-
service or in-service training to be prepared to meet the needs of
linguistic minorities.*
Assimilationist/
Exclusion
2. To be considered American, one must speak English.
5. At school, the learning of the English language by non- or limited-
English-proficient takes precedence.
14. Local and state government should require that all government
business (including voting) be conducted in English only.
Responsibility/
Culpability
17. It is important for teachers to reach out to involve the parents of all
their students.*
4. Most non- and limited-English-proficient children are not
motivated to learn English.
13. Even when they do speak English, minority parents don’t
participate in school-related activities as other parents do.
7. English should be the official language of the U.S.

* = reverse coded.
1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Agree; 4= Strongly Agree
210
Table 4, Teachers’ Characteristics
Teacher 1:
Sarah

Teacher 2
Claudia
Teacher 3:
Noemi
Teacher 4:
Norah
Teacher 5:
Rosa
Age

Mid-fifties Late
twenties
Mid-
twenties
Mid-
thirties
Late forties
Race/Ethnicity

Mexican Mexican;
Puerto
Rican
Mexican
American
Mexican
American
Ecuadorian
Gender

Female Female Female Female Female
Experience-
Yrs

25 years 6 years 1 year 10 years 15 years
Languages

Spanish
English
English
Spanish
English
Spanish
English
Spanish
Spanish
English

Teaching
Assignment

Preschool
Classroom
(3-5 yrs
old)

Childcare
Classroom
(3-5 yrs
old)

Toddler
Classroom
(2-3 yrs old)

Early
Infant
Classroom
(3mo-1yr
old)

Older
Infant
Classroom
(1-2 yrs
old)

Table 5, Content and Approach of a Culturally Responsive Professional Development
Model

Professional Development Content

Culturally
Responsive
Instruction

Traditional
Instruction

Professional
Development
Approach

Culturally Responsive
Coaching

A

C

Traditional Professional
Development

B

D

211
Table 6: Professional Development Session Topics

Assessment/
Documentation
Interview Protocols
(pre-, mid-, post-
intervention)
Interview Protocols
Interview Protocols
Examine the data
gathered by teachers
Time Req.
1 session
1 session
1 session
1 session
How Covered/Activity
Activity: Reflect on cultural/linguistic backgrounds
(e.g. “Things you think if your teacher knew about
you that would have enhanced your learning
experience)

Structured conversation: introduction to key
principles about culturally responsive teaching
practices (CRTPs); purposes of the professional
development intervention
Structured conversation: Discussion
contrasting a deficit perspective with funds of
knowledge

Activity: Complete a graphic organizer exploring
culture as a strength/asset
Structured construction: Discussion about
school-home relationship contrasting unidirectional
and bidirectional home-to-school connection

Activity: Complete a graphic organizer exploring
similarities/differences between home and school
domains
Activity: Begin KWL Chart; Assist teachers in
generating questions for home survey and distribute
disposable cameras
Research/
Theory
Villegas &
Lucas, 2002
Moll et al.,
2005
Moll et al.,
2005;
Villegas &
Lucas, 2002

Topic
Introduction to Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy:
Constructivist view on
teaching/learning;
Affirming attitudes toward
diversity; learning about
students’ lives; and
Culturally/linguistically
responsive teaching practices
Theory: Funds of Knowledge
Inquiry: Home-to-
School Connection
Application: Assist teachers
collect data for modified family
inventory project

212
Table 6, continued

Interview Protocols
Classroom
Observations
Interview Protocols
Classroom
observations
Interview Protocols
Classroom
Observations
Interview Protocols
Classroom
observations
Interview Protocols
Classroom
observations
Interview Protocols
Classroom
observations
1 session
1 session
1 session
1 session
1 session
1 session
Activity: Finish KWL Chart by completing “What I
Learned” section; discuss teacher-generated data
(home surveys and pictures taken)
Activity: Dissecting culture; discussion about culture-
sharing groups and the
practices that are characteristic of groups
Activity: Discussion focused on how teachers are an
example of a culture sharing group with distinct
group practices (teaching practices)
Structured conversation about the six principles of
second language learning (from research)

Activity: Teachers discuss knowledge of second
language learning, brainstorm scaffolding techniques
for their classrooms
Activity: Teachers brainstorm what they know about
literacy focusing on listening & speaking
Activity: Teachers brainstorm what they know about
literacy focusing on listening & speaking

Lucas et al.,
2009

Practice: Help teachers incorporate
the data into lesson and activity
planning for the classroom
Culture and Cultural Practices
Teachers and Teacher Practices
Six principles of second language
learning & Scaffolding for ELs
The Four Literacy Domains:
Listening and Speaking
The Four Literacy Domains:
Reading and Writing

213
Teacher Focus Group Protocol—Pre-Intervention

Defining Culture:
Say: “So can someone start by describing what the word “culture” means to you as a
teacher working in this community? Anyone can answer, but let’s remember to speak one
at a time.” [Everyone gets a chance to respond. Reiterate responses until a group
definition is reached.]
 What does your group definition of culture means for children and families?
 How might culture might be important in the classroom?
Home to School Connection:
Say: “Many researchers say that many children don’t do well in school because they see
no connection between what is being taught and their lives and experiences outside of
school. They say that one way to help children in this situation is for teachers to learn
more about their children’s lives and families and communities and then use that as a
way to connect in the classroom. Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not?”
 What is the role of the family in the preschool curriculum?
 How are these views about role of family accommodated in the classroom?
 What do you know about children’s lives outside the classroom?
 What kinds of things about the children do you consider when planning class
activities?
Working with Spanish Speaking students:
Say: “English learners are children who come from homes where English is not the first
language. In this area near the Little Preschool, English learners may speak Spanish or
214
even an indigenous language at home. Sometimes, English may also be spoken at home.
With that in
mind, please feel free to share about your experiences working with children whose
first language is not English.”
 How do you accommodate the home language and/or culture in the
classroom?
Culturally responsive teaching practices:
Say: “Some researchers say that some children in communities like this do not do well in
school because their cultural backgrounds come in to conflict with those values and
practices found in most schools. They also say that one way to help children in this
situation is to use culturally responsive teaching practices. Culturally responsive teaching
practices are those that help children build bridges between what they already know
about something and what they need to learn about it. Some examples of teaching
practices that are like bridges and take into account the language and/or culture of the
children are: introducing topics children are familiar with; studying topics that the
children can relate to; finding out what the children are interested in; using the children’s
home languages to help with new learning, etc. With these examples in mind, please
tell us about some of the culturally responsive teaching practices you use.”
OR ASK: Please share examples of things you do or say in the classroom where you
incorporate the children’s language and/or culture. OR ASK: How do you use what
you know about the children’s family, culture or language background to help them
learn better?
215
 How have you found these practices helpful for addressing cultural and
language differences in your class?
 How are these practices effective with English learners (Spanish-speaking
children)?
 What are some things about culturally responsive teaching practices that you
would be interested in learning more about it?
Professional development:
 Tell us about any training you’ve received for working with English learners.
 What are your expectations for the teacher training (this project)?

216
Administrator Interview Protocol—Pre-Intervention
Introduction/General Questions:
[Establish Rapport. Say: We’ll start with some general questions so I can get to know
you and then we’ll move toward more specific questions.]
1. Tell me about your career as an early childhood/preschool administrator.
2. Describe the local community and student populations served by the school(s)
you oversee.
Working With Teachers, Children and Families:
3. Describe your level of interaction with the preschool teachers at your school.
4. How do you see the role of the family in the preschool curriculum?
5. What is your view of culture? Please define.
6. What does this definition mean for the children and families your teachers and
school serves?
7. How should that definition of culture guide the instructional practices of your
teachers?
Professional Development:
8. What do you think about professional development for teachers?
9. What kinds of training do you think your teachers need?
Regulatory Factors:
10. Are there specific rules about what teachers must do in the classroom?
a. E.g. Use High Scope curriculum? Desired Results (DRDP)?
Home School Connection:
217
Say: Many researchers say that many children don’t do well in school because they see
no connection between what is being taught and their lives and experiences outside of
school. They say that one way to help children in this situation is for teachers to learn
more about their children’s lives and families and communities and then use that as a
way to connect in the classroom.
11. Do you think that’s a good idea? Why or why not?
Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices:
Say: Some researchers say that some students in communities like this do not do well in
school because their cultural backgrounds come in to conflict with those values and
practices found in most schools. They also say that one way to help students in this
situation is to use culturally responsive teaching practices. Culturally responsive
teaching practices are those that help students build bridges between what they already
know about something and what they need to learn about it. Some examples would be:
introducing topics students are familiar with, studying topics that relevant to students,
using the students’ home languages to facilitate new learning etc
12. Do you think children in this community (e.g. students whose first language is not
English) have different needs than children in other communities? If so, how
would you address them?
13. What do you know about culturally responsive teaching practices?
14. Do you think using culturally responsive teaching practices makes sense for
preschool-aged children? Why or why not?

218
Teacher Focus Group Protocol—Mid-Intervention
Defining Culture:
Say: “Last time we started by asking you to describing what the word “culture” means
to you as a teacher working in this community. Some responses shared last time were:
Culture is “your background,” “different nationalities,” “language,” “tradition,” “food,”
“where your parents come from,” “ethnicity,” “traditional clothes,” “music,” and
“holidays” and “religion,” etc.
 Since we began this training project, would you say your ideas about defining
culture changed? In what ways? Why do you think your views have changed or
not changed?
 What does your definition [new and/or expanded] of culture mean for the
children and families you work with?
 Since the training project began, would you say your view of how culture might
be important in the classroom changed? In what ways? Why or why not?
Home to School Connection:
Say: “Last time we mentioned that education researchers say that many children don’t do
well in school because they don’t see a connection between what is being taught at
school and their lives and experiences outside of school. These researchers say that one
way to help children in this situation is for teachers to learn more about their children’s
lives and families and communities and then use that as a way to connect in the
classroom. For example, ‘Children in Los Angeles don’t do as well as students in other
places. Maybe a way to help these children and students would be to learn more about
them and their families outside of school, like getting to know them in a more personal
219
way. Maybe by learning more about the specific students they’re working with, teachers
can make better decisions about what and how to teach to their actual students. What do
you think about the idea of getting to know their students and their families’ lives
OUTSIDE of school to help teachers work with them INSIDE of the classroom?”
 Since the beginning of the project, have your views changed? In what ways?
Why do you think that is?
Role of the Family in Curriculum:
Say: “Last time we also asked about the role of the family in the preschool curriculum.
Some responses shared with us were that “parents don’t get involved” and there was a
“lack of cooperation.” As a group, you also expressed that as a teacher you try to “get
them involved,” “keep them informed of their child’s progress and/or issues,” and
“interact with parents.”
 Since the beginning of the training project, have your views changed about the
role of the family in the curriculum? In what ways? Why do you think that is
the case?
 Since the beginning of the training, how have these [new, differing, expanded]
views about role of family been accommodated in the classroom?
 [Rephrase option]: If your views on the role of family in the curriculum have
changed, do you now do and/or say something different in the classroom with
the children (and/or parents) as a result?
 What do you now know about children’s lives outside the classroom that you
didn’t know before beginning this training? Please share with us some specific
examples. H
220
o How did you learn these new things about the children and families in
your class?
 What specific things about the children in your class do you now consider when
planning class activities that you didn’t before beginning this training project?
Learning about Students and Families Outside of School:
Say: “We spent several sessions talking about the home-to-school connection, about the
funds of knowledge (two-way) and the deficit perspective (one-way). We brainstormed
things that knew and wanted to know about the students using KWL charts. Then we
created a home survey that you sent out to parents. We also distributed disposable
cameras to the families.
 Describe your experience learning about student and family life outside of
school (through the home survey and disposable cameras).
 Was it useful/not useful? Why or why not?
 Did you like/ not like it? Why or why not?
 Since beginning the training project, what have you learned about your
students’ lives outside the classroom that you have found helpful to you for
teaching them or helping the children learn in the classroom?
o Some specific examples?
 How are you incorporating what you have learned about your students’ lives
outside of the classroom into your classroom teaching?
o Share with us some specific things that you do and/or say in the classroom
as result of learning new things about your students (ex: from the home
surveys).
221
 What are some challenges or successes in incorporating this information?
o Share with us about the results so far.
 Since beginning the training project, how has your relationship with the
students’ families changed?
o Some specific examples?
Working with Spanish Speaking students:
Say: “English learners are children who come from homes where English is not the first
language. In this area near the Little Preschool, English learners may speak Spanish or
even another language at home, like Mayan or another Indian language or dialect.
Sometimes, English is also spoken at home. Please feel free share about your
experiences working with children whose first language is not English.”
 How do you think it might be different to work with and teach children who only
speak English or speak English as their first language?
 How do you accommodate the home language and/or culture in the
classroom?
 Have you tried different things/continued to do other things as a result of the
training?
 How do you think you are more aware of language issues as a result of the
training?
Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices:
Say: “Some researchers in education say that some children in communities like this do
not do well in school because their cultural backgrounds come in to conflict with those
values and practices found in most schools. They also say that one way to help children
222
in this situation is to use culturally responsive teaching practices. Culturally responsive
teaching practices are those that help children build bridges between what they
already know about something and what they need to learn about it. Some examples
of these teaching practices (the things you do or say) that consider the language and/or
culture of the children are:
 Introducing topics children are familiar with;
 Studying things or topics that the children can relate to;
 Finding out what the children are interested in;
 Using the children’s home languages to help with new learning, etc.
With these examples in mind, please share with us about some of the culturally
responsive teaching practices you NOW use in the classroom that you didn’t before
training began.”
OR ASK: Please share examples of things you NOW do or say in the classroom where
you incorporate the children’s language and/or culture. OR ASK: How do you use
what you know NOW about the children’s family, culture, and language
background to help them learn better?
 How have you found these practices helpful for addressing cultural and
language differences in your class? How are these practices effective with
English learners or children learning English as second language?
 What do you know NOW about culturally responsive teaching practices that
you didn’t before the training project began?
 What are some things about culturally responsive teaching practices that you
are confused about or don’t fully understand?
223
 Please share with me some of your successes and/or challenges with
incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices.
 What are some things about culturally responsive teaching practices that you
would be interested in learning more about it?
Professional development:
Say: “We’re almost done but before we end, we’d like to get some feedback.
 What do you think of the training so far?
o One-on-one trainings? Lesson-planning sessions? In-class support?
 Have we met your expectations for the teacher training so far?
 What are some things you’d like to change? What are some things you’d like
more of?

Teacher Interview Protocol—Post-Intervention

Defining Culture:
Say: “The last two times we started by asking you to describing what the word
“culture” means to you as a teacher working in this community. Some responses
shared last time were: Culture is “your background,” “different nationalities,”
“language,” “tradition,” “food,” “where your parents come from,” “ethnicity,”
“traditional clothes,” “music,” and “holidays” and “religion,” etc.
 Since we began this training project (or since the last time we talked—the
midway point of the training), would you say your ideas about defining culture
changed? In what ways? Why do you think your views have changed or not
changed?
224
 What does your definition [new and/or expanded] of culture mean for the
children and families you work with?
 Since the training project began (or since the last time we talked—the midway
point of training), would you say your view of how culture might be important
in the classroom changed? In what ways? Why or why not?
Home to School Connection:
Say: “Last time we mentioned that education researchers say that many children don’t do
well in school because they don’t see a connection between what is being taught at
school and their lives and experiences outside of school. These researchers say that one
way to help children in this situation is for teachers to learn more about their children’s
lives and families and communities and then use that as a way to connect in the
classroom. For example, ‘Children in East LA don’t do as well as students in other
places. Maybe a way to help East LA children and students would be to learn more about
them and their families outside of school, like getting to know them in a more personal
way. Maybe by learning more about the specific students they’re working with, teachers
can make better decisions about what and how to teach to their actual students. What do
you think about the idea of getting to know their students and their families’ lives
OUTSIDE of school to help teachers work with them INSIDE of the classroom?”
 Since the beginning of the project (or since the last time we talked—the midway
point of the training), have your views changed? In what ways? Why do you
think that is?

225
Role of the Family in Curriculum:
Say: “Last time we also asked about the role of the family in the preschool curriculum.
Some responses shared with us were that “parents don’t get involved” and there was a
“lack of cooperation.” As a group, you also expressed that as a teacher you try to “get
them involved,” “keep them informed of their child’s progress and/or issues,” and
“interact with parents.”
 Since the beginning of the training project (or since the last time we talked—the
midway point of the training), have your views changed about the role of the
family in the curriculum? In what ways? Why do you think that is the case?
 Since the beginning of the training (or since the last time we talked—the mid-way
point of the training), how have these [new, differing, expanded] views about
role of family been accommodated in the classroom?
 [Rephrase option]: If your views on the role of family in the curriculum have
changed, do you now do and/or say something different in the classroom with
the children (and/or parents) as a result?
 What do you NOW know about children’s lives outside the classroom that you
didn’t know before beginning this training? Please share with us some specific
examples.
o How did you learn these new things about the children and families in
your class?
 What specific things about the children in your class do you now consider when
planning class activities that you didn’t before beginning this training project (or
since the last time we talked—the midway point of the training)?
226
Learning about Students and Families Outside of School:
Say: “We spent several sessions talking about the home-to-school connection, about the
funds of knowledge (two-way) and the deficit perspective (one-way). We brainstormed
things that knew and wanted to know about the students using KWL charts. Then we
created a home survey that you sent out to parents. We also distributed disposable
cameras to the families.
 Describe your experience learning about student and family life outside of
school (through the home survey and disposable cameras).
 Was it useful/not useful? Why or why not?
 Did you like/ not like it? Why or why not?
 Since beginning the training project (or the last time we talked—the midway
point of the training), what have you learned about your students’ lives outside
the classroom that you have found helpful to you for teaching them or helping
the children learn in the classroom?
o Some specific examples?
 How are you incorporating what you have learned about your students’ lives
outside of the classroom into your classroom teaching?
o Share with us some specific things that you do and/or say in the classroom
as result of learning new things about your students (ex: from the home
surveys).
 What are some challenges or successes in incorporating this information?
o Share with us about the results so far.
227
 Since beginning the training project (or since the last time we talked—the
midway point of the training), how has your relationship with the students’
families changed?
o Some specific examples?
Working with Spanish Speaking students:
Say: “English learners are children who come from homes where English is not the first
language. In this area near the Rainbow Center, English learners may speak Spanish or
even another language at home, like Mayan or another Indian language or dialect.
Sometimes, English is also spoken at home. Please feel free share about your
experiences working with children whose first language is not English.”
 How do you think it might be different to work with and teach children who only
speak English or speak English as their first language?
 How do you accommodate the home language and/or culture in the
classroom?
 Have you tried different things/continued to do other things as a result of the
training?
 How do you think you are more aware of language issues as a result of the
training?
Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices:
Say: “Some researchers in education say that some children in communities like this do
not do well in school because their cultural backgrounds come in to conflict with those
values and practices found in most schools. They also say that one way to help children
in this situation is to use culturally responsive teaching practices. Culturally responsive
228
teaching practices are those that help children build bridges between what they
already know about something and what they need to learn about it. Some examples
of these teaching practices (the things you do or say) that consider the language and/or
culture of the children are:
 Introducing topics children are familiar with;
 Studying things or topics that the children can relate to;
 Finding out what the children are interested in;
 Using the children’s home languages to help with new learning, etc.
With these examples in mind, please share with us about some of the culturally
responsive teaching practices you NOW use in the classroom that you didn’t before
training began (or since the last time we talked—the midway point of the training).”
OR ASK: Please share examples of things you NOW do or say in the classroom where
you incorporate the children’s language and/or culture. OR ASK: How do you use
what you know NOW about the children’s family, culture, and language
background to help them learn better?
 How have you found these practices helpful for addressing cultural and
language differences in your class? How are these practices effective with
English learners or children learning English as second language?
 What do you know NOW about culturally responsive teaching practices that
you didn’t before the training project began?
 What are some things about culturally responsive teaching practices that you
are confused about or don’t fully understand?
229
 Please share with me some of your successes and/or challenges with
incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices.
 What are some things about culturally responsive teaching practices that you
would be interested in learning more about it?
Professional development:
Say: “We’re done with the training project but we’d like to feedback.
 What do you think of the training overall?
o One-on-one trainings? Lesson-planning sessions? In-class support?
 Have we met your expectations for the teacher training?
 If we could do this training again, what are some things you would change? What
are some things you would add more of? Things you would do less of?
 Finish this sentence… “When think back to beginning of this training project
(May) until now, I learned…
 Finish this sentence: “My experience going through this training was…
 Is there anything else that you’d like to share before we end the interview?

Administrator Interview Protocol—Post-Intervention
Working With Teachers, Children and Families:
1. How has your level of interaction with the preschool teachers at your school
changed as a result of the professional development training project?
2. What, if any, changes have you noticed in the way your teachers interact with
the parents since the beginning of the professional development training
project?
230
3. How should teachers respond to the cultural and linguistic diversity of the
children and families that they work with on a daily basis? [Lesson planning,
interaction with families]
4. What, if any, changes have you noticed in the way your teachers respond to
the cultural and linguistic diversity of the children in the class since the
beginning of the professional development training project?
5. What, if any changes, have noticed in the way your teachers focus on early or
emergent literacy since the beginning of the professional development
training project?
6. What changes, if any, have you noticed in the lesson plans that your teachers
now submit to you since the beginning of the professional development
training project? Same/different? In what ways?
Home School Connection:
Say: At the beginning of the training, I mentioned that many researchers say that many
children don’t do well in school because they see no connection between what is being
taught and their lives and experiences outside of school. They say that one way to help
children in this situation is for teachers to learn more about their children’s lives and
families and communities and then use that as a way to connect in the classroom.
7. What do you think about that idea?
8. As the site supervisor who approves the lesson plans and observes in the
classroom, how do you think the professional development training helped
addressed this issue?

231
Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices:
Say: At the beginning of the training, I mentioned that some researchers say that some
students in communities like this do not do well in school because their cultural
backgrounds come in to conflict with those values and practices found in most schools.
They also say that one way to help students in this situation is to use culturally
responsive teaching practices. Culturally responsive teaching practices are those that
help students build bridges between what they already know about something and what
they need to learn about it. Some examples are: introducing topics students are familiar
with, studying topics that relevant to students, using the students’ home languages to
facilitate new learning, etc.
9. Last time, I asked you if you think children in this community (e.g. students
whose first language is not English) have different needs than children in
other communities. You said no—that differences in education (achievement
and/or attainment) could be explained by differences in resources (political in
nature). In what ways, if any, have your views changed on this since the
beginning of the training project? As a site supervisor, how could you address
the learning needs of the culturally and linguistically diverse children you
serve at your site? The second (or multiple) language learners?
10. As a result of your site’s participation in this professional development
training, what do you now know about culturally responsive teaching
practices that you didn’t know before?
a. What have you learned from your teachers, through their participation
in the training?
232
b. In what ways, if any, have you seen it make a difference in what your
teachers do in the classroom with the children and/or interact with the
families?
11. Last time I asked you if you think using culturally responsive teaching
practices makes sense for preschool-aged children. Now that we’re at the end
of the professional development training project, what do you think about
that?
a. In what ways have your views changed?
Feedback on the Professional Development Training Project:
12. What do you think about the way High Scope curriculum and the DRDP were
addressed and/or incorporated during the professional development training
project?
13. What have you noticed with respect to lesson planning and activities done in
the classroom?
14. What do you think your teachers have learned? Why do you think so? What
would you say is the evidence for that?
15. What do you think of the professional development training curriculum
presented to teachers?
a. How did it meet your teachers’ needs?
16. What kinds of training do you think your teachers still need?
17. If we could re-do the training, what kinds of things do you think could have
been covered more? Less?
233
18. Tell me about the challenges you experienced, as the site supervisor, in
coordinating your teachers’ participation in the professional development
training.
19. Overall, tell me about your impressions of the professional development
training that your teachers participated in over the last 6 months.

234
Table 7: Classroom Observation Protocol
Teacher: Observer Date Time
Notes/Examples of Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices

Tally/
Count

Codes
CR1: T plans projects for children to
construct knowledge through exploration,
peer interaction
CR2: Good balance between adult/child
talk—many opportunities to use language
CR3: Children become more responsible
for own learning
CR4: T helps children access prior
knowledge
CR5: T builds on children’s interests
CR6: T builds on children’s linguistic
resources
CR7: T uses examples from children’s
lives
CR8: T uses appropriate instructional
materials
CR9: T taps into community resources
CR10: T explores multiple cultural
perspectives
CR11: Inclusive classroom
materials/resources
SC1: Extra-lingual support
SC2: Modify/supplement text
SC3: Modify/supplement oral language
SC4: Clear/explicit instructions
SC5: Encourage use of children’s home
language
SC6: Purposeful activities for ELs, social
interaction w/ peers, negotiate meaning
SC7: Minimize EL anxiety
Classroom Map—to be sketched and adapted
for each classroom as necessary

235
Table 8: Dimension and Code Frequency Count Sheet for Classroom Observation
Protocol
Teacher: _______________________________
Dimension*

Code* Pre-
intervention
Mid-
intervention
Post-
intervention
Involves all
students in the
construction of
knowledge
CR1: T plans projects for
children to construct
knowledge through
exploration, peer interaction,
etc.

CR2: Good balance between
adult/child talk—many
opportunities to use language

CR3: Children become more
responsible for own learning

Builds on
students’
personal and
cultural
strengths
CR4: T helps children access
prior knowledge

CR5: T builds on children’s
interests

CR6: T builds on children’s
linguistic resources

CR7: T uses examples from
children’s lives

CR8: T uses appropriate
instructional materials

CR9: T taps into community
resources

Helps students
examine
classroom goals
from multiple
perspectives

CR10: T explores multiple
cultural perspectives

Makes
classroom
culture and
environment
inclusive all
students

CR11: Inclusive class

Scaffolding for
English
Learners
SC1: Extra-lingual support

SC2: Modify/supplement text

SC3: Modify/supplement oral
language

SC4: Clear/explicit
instructions

SC5: Encourage use of
children’s home language

236
Table 8, continued
SC6: Purposeful activities for
ELs, interaction w/ peers,
negotiate meaning

SC7: Minimize EL anxiety

TOTAL
*Dimensions and codes adapted from Villegas & Lucas, 2002; and Lucas, Villegas & Freedson-Gonzales,
2008.
237
Table 9,: Continuum for Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices
Continuum #1: Culture as a Context for Learning
Culture as Content  Culture as Context
Level 5
T views culture as
context for learning;
Culture is dynamic, fluid;
culture is multifaceted;
culture as lens or
perspective for
experiencing the world; T
understands culture as a
way of learning,
experiencing and being in
the world
Level 4
T recognizes that
stereotyping may be
limiting; T broadens
understanding of cultural
definitions; T recognizes
that people may define in-
group membership by
criteria they may not
necessarily use and/or
understand
Level 3
T acknowledges reality of
individual and family
difference among cultural
group membership; T
recognizes that people
can belong to multiple
cultural groups
Level 2
T begins to move away
from rigid conceptions of
culture; T experiences
cognitive dissonance and
may be resistant to new
ideas and definitions of
culture; T reflects little
about long-held beliefs;
T may spend a lot of time
at this level
Level 1
T views culture as
content to be learned;
culture is static;
Culture defined as the
outwardly visible factors;
tangible markers of group
membership are
language; race/ethnicity,
parent’s origin;
essentialist view of
culture (food, traditional
dress, music, religion)

238
Table 9, continued
Continuum #2: Authentic Home-to-School Connection
Family has No Role Role  Family as Equal Partner
Deficit Perspective Funds of Knowledge
Level 5
Level 4 plus, T partners
with parents; T is able to
get parent volunteers on a
regular basis in class
activities; T collaborates
with parents on activity
planning; T actively takes
the initiative to develop a
positive relationship with
child and family
Level 4
T solicits parent/family
feedback; takes initiative
to incorporate family into
class activities; invites
parents to participate in
class activities; T
provides many
opportunities for families
to participate; T expresses
bidirectional view of the
home-to-school
connection; funds of
knowledge; families have
collective knowledge;
everyday knowledge
valuable for academic
context; family as equal
partner; initiates learning
about child and family
Level 3
T puts forth some effort
to communicate w/
parents; T send letters
home and/or greet parents
in home language; T
informs families about
child’s progress, needs or
issues; T expects family
cooperation w/ class
activities or plans but
does not explicitly plan or
facilitate; T
acknowledges importance
of partnership between
family & school;
interested in learning
more about child’s family
& life outside the
classroom; T recognizes
different families can
contribute in different
ways
Level 2
T acknowledges that
families are marginally
involved (parents
sometimes respond to
teacher inquiry but do not
often initiate
communication or
involvement); T does not
initiate direct
communication with
parents; T expresses need
for parents & teachers to
work together (but prefers
passive cooperation); T
expresses some interest in
connecting school and
family but not as an
explicit job requirement
Level 1
T expresses the view that
families have no direct
role in the curriculum; T
claims families or parents
are not involved and non-
responsive to school or
teacher; T expresses uni-
directional view of
school-to-home
relationship; deficit
perspective; T views
family as a problem;
parents should be
informed of and adopt
school values &
practices; T expresses it is
parents’ job to motivate
children

239
Table 9, continued
Continuum #3: Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices to Improve Instruction
No CRTPs  More CRTPs
Level 5
T uses many CRTPs &
does so consistently; T
considers all children’s
experiential background
in activity & lesson
planning, T considers &
plans for the learning
needs of children in class;
activities have clear
learning goals and use
CRTPs to bridge new
learning

Level 4
T uses some CRTPS
consistently; T considers
some aspects of some
children’s experiential
(language, culture,
family, etc.) background
to plan future activities or
lessons that attempt to
bridge academic content
or learning
Level 3
T demonstrates interest in
learning more about and
using CRTPs; T considers
children’s interests for
daily activities (although
no connection to learning
goals are made); T does
not bridge academic
content or learning
through the use of CRTPs
Level 2
T may be aware of basic
CRTPs after they are
pointed out; T uses some
CRTPs but not
consistently; T may rely
on the use of some
CRTPs due to familiarity
or ease (i.e. using
children’s home
language)
Level 1
T does not claim to know
what CRTPs are; T does
not claim to use CRTPs;
the use of CRTPs are not
observed in the classroom
and/or with children &
families

240
Table 9, continued
Continuum #4: Incorporating Family Literacy Practices
No Family Literacy Practices  More Family Literacy Practice
Level 5
Level 4 plus, T actively
learns more about the
children’s family literacy
practices; T incorporates
family practices into the
class learning activities; T
affirms and plans literacy-
related activities in
children’s home language; T
collaborates with parents to
share family literacy
practices or participate
and/or volunteer with
literacy-related activities in
the classroom; T shares
literacy related instructional
tips and resources with
families regularly
Level 4
T is aware and
acknowledges a wide
range of family literacy
practices; T expresses
expansive view of literacy,
including
technology/computer
literacy; T expresses broad
view that literacy is not
limited to school only but
includes the home and
other environments; T
acknowledges and affirms
languages in addition to
English in the classroom;
T knows about and
acknowledges that family
engages in literacy
practices in the home
language
Level 3
T acknowledges different
types of family literacy
practices; T expands view
of literacy to include
reading, writing, speaking
and listening and
recognizes them a variety
of contexts and activities
(i.e. music, rhyming,
dramatic play expression);
T expresses positive views
about languages other than
English in the classroom; T
knows what languages the
children use at home
expresses positive views
about languages other than
English in the classroom; T
knows what languages the
children use at home
Level 2
T is becomes more aware
that there are family
literacy practices; T
expands view of literacy
to include listening and
speaking aspects of
literacy; T expresses that
literacy is primarily a
school domain; T
expresses view that
English is preferred over
other languages at school
and in the classroom; T
becomes aware that some
children speak languages
other than English at
home languages at school
and in the classroom; T
becomes aware that some
children speak languages
other than English at
home
Level 1
T is not aware and/or
does not acknowledge
family literacy practices;
T expresses narrow views
of literacy as reading and
writing only; T expresses
view that literacy is a
school domain only; T
views English and the
only language for school
and the classroom; T does
not know or value
children’s home language
and literacy practices and
literacy practices

241
Table 9, continued
Continuum #5: Teacher Agency, Expertise and Self-Efficacy
No Agency, Expertise or Self-Efficacy  More Agency, Expertise and Self-Efficacy
Level 5
Level 4 plus T
demonstrates
thoughtfulness in lesson &
activity planning; T
expresses confidence in
her ability to provide
appropriate instruction for
class; T is comfortable
interacting with families
Level 4
T is aware and
acknowledges a wide
range of family literacy
practices; T expresses
expansive view of
literacy, including
technology/computer
literacy; T expresses
broad view that literacy is
not limited to school only
but includes the home and
other environments; T
acknowledges and
affirms languages in
addition to English in the
classroom; T knows about
and acknowledges that
family engages in literacy
practices in the home
language
Level 3
T recognized that she may
be making assumptions
about children & families;
T chooses to learn about
children & their families;
T assumes responsibility
for lesson & activity
planning that is age
appropriate & culturally
responsive; T see her role
as important, but limited
to the class domain; T
acknowledges her
experiential knowledge
(as well the children &
families)
Level 2
T recognizes differences
in family structure &
parenting; T makes
assumptions about
families; T recognizes
lesson & activity planning
is requirement; T is not
actively engaged in
lesson-planning; T does
not demonstrate reflection
on planning or
instructional practices; T
does not recognize her
own experiential
knowledge as valuable
(deficit perspective of
self)
Level 1
T holds parents
responsible for children’s
lack of knowledge or
preparation; T expects
parents to motivate,
discipline and educate
children at home (in a
manner consistent
w/school norms); T
blames parents for not
being involved or lacking
awareness of school
cultural norms, values &
practices; T problematizes
parenting practices; T
pathologizes the family

242
Table 10: Data Sources and Collection Procedures
Purpose
To document beliefs &
attitudes regarding
language & cultural
diversity; examine
changes & patterns
To document observed
teacher practices at three
points in time; examine
changes and patterns
Direct interpretation,
categorical analysis
(Stake, 1999)
Direct interpretation,
categorical analysis
(Stake, 1999)
Direct interpretation,
categorical analysis
(Stake, 1999)
Administration
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
Pre-intervention
Mid-intervention
Post-intervention
Pre-intervention
Mid-intervention
Post-intervention;
Pre-, Post-
intervention
Intervention (six-
month period)
Data Source
Teachers,
Assistants
Teachers,
Assistants
Teachers
Teachers;
Administrator

Measure/Data
LATS-R
(Flores & Smith, 2008)
Classroom Observation
Protocol (includes field
notes and coding)
Transcript data
Transcript data
Transcript data
Data Type
Language
Attitudes Survey
Classroom
Observations
Focus Groups
(audio-recorded)
Interviews
(audio-recorded)
10 Individual PD
Trainings (audio-
recorded)

243
Table 10, continued
Direct interpretation,
categorical analysis
(Stake, 1999)
Direct interpretation,
categorical analysis
(Stake, 1999)
Triangulation of
data
To document
change over time;
comprehensive
method for cross-
case comparison
Intervention six-
month period)
Intervention (six-
month period)
Entire study period
(pre- through post-
intervention)
pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Teachers
Teachers, Assistants
Administrator,
teachers
Teachers
Transcript data
Transcript data
School materials,
photos, lesson
plans, teacher-
generated data
(home surveys,
student work)
Continuum for
Culturally
Responsive
Teaching Practices
6 Individual Lesson-
Planning Sessions
(audio-recorded)
6 In-class Teacher
Support Sessions
(audio-recorded)
Artifacts
Multiple Sources
of Teacher Data
(all of the above)

244
Table 11: Methods Used to Collect Data for Answering Each Research Question
Research
Question

(1) What are early
childhood teachers’
beliefs, knowledge and
practices with respect to
working with and teaching
English Learners?

(2) How do early childhood
teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and
practices change over time with a
culturally responsive coaching
model of professional development
addressing culturally responsive
teaching practices?

Objective

Establish baseline data

Provided comparison data for
determining change/growth

Administration

Pre-Intervention Mid-
Intervention
Post-
Intervention

Method of Data
Collection

LATS-R

—

LATS-R
Classroom Observations Classroom
Observations
Classroom
Observations

Culturally Responsive
Teaching Practices
Continuum
— Culturally
Responsive
Teaching
Practices
Continuum

Teacher Focus Groups Teacher Focus
Groups
Teacher Exit
Interviews

Administrator Initial
Interview
— Administrator
Exit Interview

245
Documenting the Process of Providing Culturally Responsive Professional
Development
Whereas the cross-case analysis from chapter four discussed the differences and
similarities in the data across the teachers and their classrooms, this section focuses on
detailing how the professional development intervention adapted and changed as result of
the embedded feedback loop. While the two main topics of this section overlap in many
ways, these are discussed in two sub-sections, separated out for ease of reading. A linear
progression of events and/or actions is not meant or implied. The next sub-section
addresses the culturally responsive approach to the professional development and the one
following it focuses on culturally responsive teaching practices as the professional
development content. As mentioned earlier in the section on research design and
methodology, a distinction is made between traditional approaches to professional
development and the approach used in the in the present case study. Table 5 provides a
graphic illustration (Appendix).
Professional Development Approach: Being Culturally Responsive to Teachers
The approach to professional development was culturally and linguistically
responsive to the study participants, or teachers. The goal of the intervention was for the
researcher to teach early childhood educators about culturally responsive pedagogy by
modeling cultural responsiveness. There are many ways to be sensitive to student
cultural and linguistic diversity. One way to demonstrate sensitivity or awareness of
diversity is for the instructor or teacher to adapt and modify instructional approaches
and/or content to address the unique learning needs of the individuals and/or group.
Furthermore, being culturally responsive necessitates that the teacher build on the
246
students’ cultural and linguistic strengths to enhance learning. In the case of this study,
the researcher served in the role of instructor-coach and the teachers participated as
learners. Some examples of being culturally and linguistically responsive include:
accommodating the teachers’ language preferences; being flexible about teachers’ time
and work space; providing materials and resources that were accessible to the teachers;
and providing ample opportunities for teachers to provide feedback. These are discussed
below.
Accommodating Teachers’ Language Preferences
One example of providing culturally and linguistically responsive professional
development includes knowing your audience and being prepared to make
accommodations for language needs and preference. All of the teachers in the study were
bilingual in English and Spanish, yet each had an expressed language preference. The
teachers chose to communicate in their dominant language. To ensure that teachers were
able to express themselves without language barrier, and, given that the researcher is
bilingual as well, it was determined from the outset that each teacher’s language
preference would be respected. Thus, all professional development sessions were
conducted in teachers’ expressed language preference: English or Spanish. Two of the
five teachers received all of the individualized trainings and lesson-planning sessions in
Spanish. In-classroom support for these two teachers was offered in the language of
instruction at the time or in the language preferences of the students the researcher
interacted with, but informal teacher feedback was given in the teachers’ language
preference. Furthermore, the focus groups in which these two teachers participated were
247
conducted in both languages while their corresponding exit interviews were conducted in
Spanish only.
Being Flexible about Teachers’ Time and Work Space
Another example of being responsive to the teachers’ needs meant that all
sessions were conducted in accordance with the teachers’ schedules. Each teacher had a
daily agenda with specified times for activities, lessons and playtime. There were three
playground areas and four classrooms that share the space. Playtime was staggered so
that each classroom kept to its assigned time and area. Children’s nap times coincided
with teacher and assistants’ lunch periods. Lead teachers and assistants rotated all
breaks, including the main lunch break. To ensure appropriate teacher-student ratios,
these rules were firmly adhered to and rarely deviated during the study. This often meant
that the researcher carefully planned out meeting times in advance with the administrator
to ensure scheduling success. However, working with young children can be
unpredictable. Some days, children in a given classroom were cranky, tired, or sick. The
teachers and/or assistants called in sick, had to leave to tend to personal business, or
experienced emergencies. Some days, important school-wide events meant that some
professional development activities were rescheduled. To minimize conflict and ensure a
smooth working relationship, the researcher exercised flexibility and patience with
respect to scheduling professional development intervention activities throughout the
entire study period while working with the staff at LP.
The researcher respected teachers’ space in addition to their time. Professional
development activities were held in the location of teachers’ preference. For example,
some teachers preferred to meet in their classroom. Other teachers preferred to leave the
248
classroom and chose to meet in a private office housed in the main office building. There
were times when teachers expressed feeling distracted with the children in the room even
though they were supposed to be taking naps—sometimes children woke and required
immediate attention. Still, other teachers preferred meeting and working at outside picnic
tables in the courtyard on sunny days. On some days, a change of venue or a cup of
coffee really helped teachers refocus on the professional development. Other times, when
teachers honestly expressed they were “just not feelin’ it,” it was best to respect the
teacher and reschedule the session to another day and/or time when she would be less
distracted, more cooperative and/or in a more receptive mood.
Providing Accessible Materials and Resources
All teachers received training materials that included visual and graphic aids used
for each interactive training activity, summaries of the key points of each session, copies
of written reflection questions asked during the sessions, and several lists and packets of
suggestions for age-appropriate activity ideas that could each teacher could adapt for her
class. The activity ideas provided were usually directly related to the topic discussed
during the PD session. For example, during sessions that dealt explicitly with literacy
domains—such as listening and speaking or reading and writing—the researcher and the
teacher worked on discussing and generating ideas and recorded them on graphic
organizers. Teachers actively shared activities they previously used and/or suggested new
activity ideas they were willing to try as a result of a focused discussion on the topic
during the PD session. As a way to extend the activity and follow up with teachers, the
researcher created a master list that compiled of ideas generated by all teachers. This
master list was then distributed as a resource to all teachers and assistants. In this way,
249
teachers were able to get creative, try new ideas already used by other teachers and share
“best practices.” The researcher also gathered resource materials from the administrator
and other relevant and age-appropriate sources to distribute to teachers.
Due to time constraints and scheduling conflicts, teacher assistants did not receive
individualized PD sessions or directly participate in lesson planning sessions. However,
in effort to be inclusive and ensure that teacher assistants also had access to the PD
content, teacher assistants received similar training materials that included summary of
key points of sessions and activity suggestions for the classroom. In this way, teachers
were able to discuss the professional development intervention with their assistants and
include them in lesson planning and in the preparation for class activities. Bilingual
training materials and resources were also provided where possible. By providing all lead
teachers and teaching assistants with resources that were relevant, user-friendly and
accessible (language), the researcher modeled cultural and linguistic responsiveness.
In addition to resources, teachers received extra materials required to implement
an activity or fully realize an idea. For example, suggested activity ideas during
individualized lesson planning sessions with the researcher. However, as lesson ideas
developed, teachers realized some activities required materials they did not have readily
available on site. To promote a sense of possibility and not stifle creativity among the
teachers, the researcher initially provided some of these extra materials needed (special
art supplies, specific fruit/vegetables, seeds for planting, fabric, etc) for the lesson to be
carried out successfully. As the professional development training continued, the
researcher encouraged teachers to be industrious by tapping into the local community,
including parents and families, to support classroom projects and activities. By initially
250
helping teachers think through more deeply about what resources and materials were
required for specific lessons well in advance, teachers were emboldened and empowered
to actively seek out the resources, materials and community assistance to provide creative
and engaging learning experiences for their students. Since the researcher provided
relevant resources and brought into the classroom the materials the teacher requested,
teachers’ ideas were validated and lesson plans were supported. The researcher and
teacher did not just talk about ideal lessons in the abstract; they took real steps to bring
the activity idea to fruition and execute the lesson plan. By actively supporting teachers
with resources and materials, the researcher was responsive to the teachers’ needs.
Providing Teachers with Ample Opportunities to Give Feedback
Soliciting teacher feedback was not only a way to have teachers provide insight
for the development of the content of the professional development intervention, it was
also a way to be responsive to teachers. It made the process of providing training to study
participants more collaborative since teachers were treated as professionals whose
expertise should be consulted. It was a way to show respect for and validate teachers’
professional experience and doing so gave teachers voice and ownership over what and
how material was covered. While some teacher feedback was gathered during the pre-
intervention focus groups and initial classroom observations, the researcher and the
teachers regularly discussed training content issues, problems, successes, reflections, and
exchanged ideas related to the professional development intervention. While the PD
sessions served as the setting for training activities such as teacher inquiry, learning, and
discussion, these were also times for feedback about the training itself. During the PD
sessions, the researcher provided information and aided teachers in acquiring valuable
251
tools for improving their instruction also served as a facilitator for these meetings where
teachers were active participants—not passive recipients.
Although the researcher tentatively created the curriculum for the professional
development intervention, sufficient flexibility was built into the curriculum to
acknowledge teachers’ experience, knowledge, resources, needs and interests. In
regularly soliciting teachers’ feedback on the professional development intervention they
received, the researcher modeled responsiveness to teachers’ concerns about the training.
Seriously considering and using teacher feedback to make adjustments and modifications
to the intervention demonstrated a concerted effort on the part of the researcher to be
responsive to teachers’ needs and/or interests. Additionally, the administrator’s input on
the training content, as well as teachers’ needs, was also solicited by the researcher prior
to beginning the intervention.
Professional Development Content: Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices
In addition to providing professional development to teachers in a culturally
responsive manner so that it is explicitly modeled to teachers how to be culturally
responsive to their own students, the content addressed during the professional
development training also centered on cultivating the use of culturally responsive
teaching practices. Whereas the previous section discussed the professional development
approach (demonstrating cultural responsiveness), this section discusses the professional
development content (using culturally responsive teaching practices): the professional
development activities, especially the individual PD sessions focused on learning about
and using culturally responsive teaching practices. The PD content integrated the
theoretical underpinnings as well as the practical aspects of using of culturally responsive
252
teaching practices. The following subsections detail how delivering the content of the
professional development intervention adapted over time with feedback from study
participants. Specifically, the following is discussed below: incorporating administrator
feedback and respecting school curriculum; using teacher feedback to modify
professional development content; helping teacher apply new learning in lesson planning;
and coaching teachers in using culturally responsive teaching practices in the classroom.
Incorporating the Administrator’s Feedback and Respecting Curriculum Guidelines
Coming into a natural setting—not a laboratory experiment—the researcher
respected educational priorities and learning objectives as well prescribed curriculum that
were set in place long before the study began. Thus, in addition to providing teachers
with ample opportunities to give feedback on the professional development intervention
activities, it was essential to solicit the administrator’s feedback as well. The researcher
developed a close working relationship with the administrator over the course of the
study. The initial meeting between the researcher and administrator occurred before
significant contact with the teachers in their classrooms. During this meeting, the
researcher explained the study purposes and goals while the administrator shared her
perspective gave insight about the teachers needs.
Specifically, the administrator made it clear that it was important to her that
teachers received explicit training on literacy concepts and learned how to plan and
execute literacy-related activities for both small and large groups. The administrator
wanted to ensure the content of the professional development training would be
compatible with the curriculum that was currently being used, as prescribed by her
supervisors via the management organization. The curriculum used at LP was
253
HighScope, the federally approved curriculum for early childhood education. The
administrator also took care to explain in detail the level of classroom and teacher
observation and supervision that was required of her. Additionally, the administrator
shared with researcher the types of assessments used for documenting child progress.
This information provided parameters and guidelines to consider when planning the
content of the professional development, as well determined the resources and materials
that would be made available to the teachers and assistants (i.e. compatible with
HighScope and approved by the administrator).
It was exceedingly important that the researcher and administrator communicate
clearly about expectations for the professional development training before proceeding
with the intervention to prevent misunderstandings. Any concerns that the administrator
raised were addressed as immediately as they arose in efforts to preserve and strengthen
the working relationship. While the administrator was interviewed formally twice (at the
pre- and post-intervention intervals), much of the collaboration and on-going dialogue
between the researcher and the administrator was frequent, especially as the professional
development intensified and the study unfolded.
Drawing on Teachers’ Funds of Knowledge to Design and Modify Training Content
The pre- and mid-intervention teacher focus groups served as informal
discussions to gain an understanding of teachers’ needs and expectations directly from
them. The researcher used these as opportunities to provide the space for teachers to
dialogue about their concerns and challenges as professionals working in the classroom
as well as an outlet to discuss their professional development and learning needs.
Furthermore, these open conversations allowed for open teacher reflection and provided
254
the safe space in which to think aloud and process their successes, formulate and
verbalize epiphanies and express what they had learned their individual experiences with
the professional development intervention. While the PD sessions served as the setting
for training activities such as teacher inquiry, learning, and discussion, these were also
times during which teachers provided regular feedback about the PD content addressed.
Midway through the study, it became evident that some concepts critical to
understanding the purpose of using culturally responsive teaching practices needed to be
addressed. This was confirmed through frank discussion that emerged during the mid-
intervention teacher focus groups. The teachers’ feedback served as course correction.
For example, during pre-intervention focus groups, teachers defined culture in narrow
and essentialist terms. The teachers’ understanding of culture impeded their ability to see
the importance of engaging parents and families with the home survey and making
meaning from the pictures that children and their families took to represent their home
life. Because teachers were from similar racial/ethnic group and shared language in
common, they made assumptions about the experiential backgrounds of the children and
their families.
At this point in the study, teachers struggled to see how their definitions of culture
affected their views their students’ home lives. Specifically, teachers wanted to teach
about culture as a subject or content matter often relying on stereotypes of cultural
groups defined by nationality and/or ethnicity and race. This made it difficult for teachers
to identify valuable home practices that could be incorporated into the classroom. The
goal of the professional development intervention activities was to help teachers use
teaching practices that were responsive to the children’s experiential backgrounds,
255
especially language, culture, and the home. For example, teachers did not immediately
recognize that reading at home and the way this is done is an example of a cultural
practice that may differ from family to family. It became clear to the researcher that
teachers would need to make a distinction between culture and cultural practices. To
further illustrate the difference and help teachers recognize their role in the classroom,
teachers would need to be able connect these ideas more concretely. So, in addition to
discussing culture and cultural practices, the professional development intervention
would also need to address teachers as a cultural group and teacher practices as cultural
practices. To ensure these important topics were addressed, the intervention needed to be
modified to take into account this new information from the teachers.
In addition to the pre- and mid-intervention focus groups and individual training
and lesson planning sessions with teachers, teachers shared their insights with the
researcher outside of these PD sessions. Because the researcher was in the teachers’
classrooms on a regular basis, teachers were able to share concerns and ask questions as
they came up. The immediate teacher feedback allowed the researcher to fine-tune and
make adjustments to the professional development content to address expressed needs.
As the researcher responded to teachers’ learning needs and over time, a close working
relationship between each teacher and the researcher developed.
Helping Teachers Apply New Learning in Lesson Planning
In addition to PD trainings, teachers also received six individual lesson planning
sessions with the researcher. During these sessions, training content was discussed and
lesson plans were developed to address student learning needs as well as incorporate
teachers’ learning from previous trainings. The lesson-planning sessions were an
256
opportunity for teachers think and reflect on their lesson and activity planning and ask
questions about planning age-appropriate and focused activities that address specific
learning objectives. The researcher took on the role of facilitator in these sessions.
During the first couple of lesson planning sessions with each teacher, the researcher
asked questions to understand how each teacher planned and worked. For example, when
teachers suggested activity ideas, the researcher asked about the learning objective and
what learning needs the children the activity or lesson would address. The researcher also
asked teachers what materials they would be using for the activity in an effort to help
teachers prepare for their lessons in advance. In addition to asking questions, the
researcher facilitated discussions that drew on the PD content and resources to help
teachers incorporate new learning into lesson planning. The researcher and teachers
planned lessons and discussed various aspects of executing the lesson plans using
culturally responsive teaching practices. In this way, the researcher modeled what they
needed to do in order to plan effective instruction for their students. Over time, teachers
needed less support and took more initiative in planning the activities. Teachers
proactively addressed the concerns around the activities and lessons without having the
researcher ask the questions around the pertinent issues.
Coaching Teachers to Use Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices in the Classroom
To tie together the individualized trainings and lesson-planning sessions, the
researcher also provided in-classroom support to all teachers on an on-going basis. These
sessions were primarily focused on helping the teacher implement activities previously
planned during sessions with the researcher. The researcher aided teachers in executing
activities (sometimes modeling instruction), provided material and resources for
257
activities, worked with the children as well as the teachers’ assistants, and provided
individual feedback to the teachers, often asking reflective questions. The researcher
provided in-classroom support for each teacher individually. That is, the researcher
worked in each classroom with the lead teacher and the teacher assistants. While the
researcher and teachers planned lessons together, teachers executed the activities on a
daily basis with help from the assistants. However, on days the researcher provided
support in the classroom, the researcher modeled culturally responsive instruction, aided
the teacher executing the lesson plan and often worked with a small group of children.
The researcher provided the teacher with feedback on the lessons or activities by asking
questions about how the lesson went, what they think went well and where they
experiences difficulties and what could be done differently in the future.
The coaching provided took a scaffolding approach. It was important to build a
strong working relationship with the teachers before assuming that coaching and hands-
on collaboration would be welcomed. It was necessary to ensure that teachers were
receptive and open to the idea of a researcher-coach providing demonstration lessons and
immediate feedback about instructional practices. By coming into the classroom first as
a quiet observer and then taking a role as an assistant, teachers became more comfortable
with the researcher. Later, it was possible for the researcher to step into the role of peer
and colleague to execute jointly-planned lessons and/or activities. Observing the
researcher employ culturally responsive teaching practices with the children, teachers
became more comfortable trying out new ideas as well as responding to feedback from
researcher and site supervisor. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the
relationship between scaffolded coaching and teacher trust.
258
Figure 1: Taking a Scaffolding Approach to Culturally Responsive Coaching

Culturally responsive coaching is a function of teachers’ levels of trust and agency. As
teachers’ level of trust increases, the researcher provides more intensive coaching,
mentoring and feedback. As teachers’ sense of agency increases and requires less
scaffolding, the coach provides less intense coaching and focuses on providing more
teacher feedback.

In this figure, the coach’s level of participation remains constant regardless of teachers’
level of trust in the working relationship or sense of agency. In this case, the level of
coaching does not reflect changes in the working relationship between the coach and
teacher. The level of coaching is not responsive to teachers’ learning and support needs.
Coach’s Level of Participation
Level of Teacher Agency
Level of Teacher’s Trust
Coach’s Level of Participation
259
Table 12: Pre- and Post-Intervention Changes in Teachers’ LATS-R Survey Scores
Construct Measured*

Teacher** Pre-
Intervention
Score
Post-
Intervention
Score
Change
Rights and Privileges Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

18
14
8
12
17
15
11
8
10
17
-3
-3
0
-2
0
Aesthetic Caring*
(all items reverse-coded)
Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

5
4
7
13
5
6
4
5
8
9
+1
0
-2
-5
+4
Assimilationist/Exclusion Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

7
9
4
6
7
8
7
6
4
5
+1
-2
-2
-2
-2
Responsibility/Culpability Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

11
7
7
5
12
8
7
5
7
8
-3
0
-2
+2
-4
Total Composite Score Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

41
34
26
36
41
37
29
24
29
39
-4
-5
-2
-7
-2
*Constructs (and individual items) from LATS-R scale used in Flores and Smith (2008).
**All teachers’ names are pseudonyms

260
Figure 2: Pre- and Post-Intervention Changes in LATS-R by Composite Scores for All
Teachers

41
37
34
29
26
24
36
29
41
39
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention
LATS-R Composite SCore
Sarah (T2)
Claudia (T2)
Noemi (T3)
Norah (T4)
Rosa (T5)
261
Figure 3: Pre- and Post-Intervention Changes in LATS-R by Construct Subcomponent
Scores for Sarah, Teacher 1

0
5
10
15
20
25
Rights and
Privileges
Aesthetic Caring Assimilationist/
Exclusion
Responsibility/
Culpability
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
262
Figure 4: Pre- and Post-Intervention Changes in LATS-R by Construct Subcomponent
Scores for Claudia, Teacher 2

0
5
10
15
20
25
Rights and
Privileges
Aesthetic Caring Assimilation/
Exclusion
Responsibility/
Culpability
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
263
Figure 5: Pre- and Post-Intervention Changes in LATS-R by Construct Subcomponent
Scores for Noemi, Teacher 3

0
5
10
15
20
25
Rights and
Privileges
Aesthetic Caring Assimilation/
Exclusion
Responsibility/
Culpability
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
264
Figure 6: Pre- and Post-Intervention Changes in LATS-R by Construct Subcomponent
Scores for Norah, Teacher 4

0
5
10
15
20
25
Rights and
Privileges
Aesthetic Caring Assimilation/
Exclusion
Responsibility/
Culpability
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
265
Figure 7: Pre- and Post-Intervention Changes in LATS-R by Construct Subcomponent
Scores for Rosa, Teacher 5

17
5
7
12
17
9
5
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
Rights and
Privileges
Aesthetic Caring Assimilation/
Exclusion
Responsibility/
Culpability
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
266
Table 13: Comparing Changes in Teachers’ Practices Based on Classroom Observations
Dimension Teacher
Pre-
Intervention
Mid-
Intervention
Post-
Intervention
Pre-to-Post
Change
Count % to
total
Count % to
total
Count % to
total
Count %
Change
Involves all
students in
the
construction
of knowledge

Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

9
16
5
18
26
30%
38%
15%
26%
22%
11
6
9
16
-
14%
19%
13%
21%

12
16
17
32
33
13%
14%
25%
34%
26%
+3
0
+12
+14
+7
+25%
0
+240%
+78%
+27%

Builds on
students’
personal and
cultural
strengths
Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

8
10
9
22
36
27%
24%
27%
32%
30%
31
6
22
30
-
39%
19%
33%
40%
33
35
21
39
40
35%
32%
31%
42%
31%
+25
+25
+22
+17
+4
+313%
+250%
+133%
77%
11%
Helps
students
examine
classroom
goals from
multiple
perspectives

Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

0
0
1
0
3
0
0
3%
0
3%

4
1
2
0
-
5%
3%
3%
0
7
5
0
0
1
7%
5%
0
0
1%
+7
+5
-1
0
-2

Makes
classroom
culture and
environment
inclusive all
students

Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

6
4
3
1
2
20%
10%
9%
1%
2%

6
5
2
1
-
8%
16%
3%
1%
3
8
3
2
9
3%
7%
4%
2%
7%
-3
+4
0
+1
+7
-50%
+100%
0
+100%
350%
Scaffolding
for English
Learners
Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa

7
12
15
4
53
23%
29%
45%
6%
44%
28
13
34
1
-
35%
42%
51%
1%
40
47
27
1
46
42%
42%
40%
1%
36%
+33
+30
+22
-3
-13
471%
291%
80%
-75%
-13%
TOTAL
Sarah
Claudia
Noemi
Norah
Rosa**

30
42
33
69
120
80
31
69
75
-
95
111
68
93
129
+65
+69
+35
+24
+9
+216%
+164%
+106%
+35%
+7%
*Dimensions (and codes) adapted from Villegas & Lucas, 2002; and Lucas, Villegas & Freedson-
Gonzales, 2008.
**Rosa participated in all the professional development intervention activities even though she came into
the study halfway through the six-month intervention period.

267
Figure 8: Pre- and Post-Intervention Total Changes in Teacher’s Observed Classroom
Practices

*Note: A cursory look at the data seemingly indicates that Rosa grew less over time
when compared to the other four teachers in the study. However, Rosa came into the
study halfway through the intervention study period. While she received and participated
in all of the professional development activities, her experiences were condensed into a
three-month rather than a six-month intervention period. So Rosa, as a case, represents a
natural experiment. Rosa experienced positive growth—increased her use of culturally
responsive teaching practices—and even this natural experiment demonstrated the
positive effects culturally responsive coaching and professional development
intervention.
30
41
33
69
120
95
111
68
93
129
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
T1: Sarah T2: Claudia T3: Noemi T4: Norah T5: Rosa*
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
268
Figure 9: Pre- and Post-Intervention Results on Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices
Continuum for Teacher 1, Sarah

Dimension 1: Culture as a Context for Learning
Dimension 2: Authentic Home-to-School Connection
Dimension 3: Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices to Improve Instruction
Dimension 4: Incorporating Family Literacy Practices
Dimension 5: Teacher Agency, Expertise and Self-Efficacy

0
1
2
3
4
5
Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4 Dimension 5
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Continuum Levels
Teacher 1: Sarah
269
Figure 10: Pre- and Post-Intervention Results on Culturally Responsive Teaching
Practices Continuum Results for Teacher 2, Claudia

Dimension 1: Culture as a Context for Learning
Dimension 2: Authentic Home-to-School Connection
Dimension 3: Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices to Improve Instruction
Dimension 4: Incorporating Family Literacy Practices
Dimension 5: Teacher Agency, Expertise and Self-Efficacy

0
1
2
3
4
5
Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4 Dimension 5
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Teacher 2: Claudia
Continuum Levels
270
Figure 11: Pre- and Post-Intervention Results on Culturally Responsive Teaching
Practices Continuum for Teacher 3, Noemi

Dimension 1: Culture as a Context for Learning
Dimension 2: Authentic Home-to-School Connection
Dimension 3: Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices to Improve Instruction
Dimension 4: Incorporating Family Literacy Practices
Dimension 5: Teacher Agency, Expertise, and Self-Efficacy

0
1
2
3
4
5
Dimension
1
Dimension
2
Dimension
3
Dimension
4
Dimension
5
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Teacher 3: Noemi
Continuum Levels
271
Figure 12: Pre- and Post-Intervention Results on Culturally Responsive Teaching
Practices Continuum Results for Teacher 4, Norah

Dimension 1: Culture as a Context for Learning
Dimension 2: Authentic Home-to-School Connection
Dimension 3: Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices to Improve Instruction
Dimension 4: Incorporating Family Literacy Practices
Dimension 5: Teacher Agency, Expertise, and Self-Efficacy

0
1
2
3
4
5
Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4 Dimension 5
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Teacher 4: Norah
Continuum Levels
272
Figure 13: Pre- and Post-Intervention Continuum Results for Teacher 5, Rosa

Dimension 1: Culture as a Context for Learning
Dimension 2: Authentic Home-to-School Connection
Dimension 3: Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices to Improve Instruction
Dimension 4: Incorporating Family Literacy Practices
Dimension 5: Teacher Agency, Expertise, and Self-Efficacy

0
1
2
3
4
5
Dimension
1
Dimension
2
Dimension
3
Dimension
4
Dimension
5
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Teacher 5: Rosa
Continuum Levels
273
Table 14: Themes, Categories and Codes
Codes
 Nationality
 Flag from country of origin
 Ethnicity/race
 Language
 Traditional/folk dress
 Traditional/folk music
 Traditional food

 Cultural practices
 Home practices
 Compliance-seeking (Uni-
directional: School to Home)
 Deficit-Oriented Perspective

 Collaborative Partnership
 (Bidirectional)
 Funds of Knowledge
 Do what I know
 Not willing to try new ideas

 Incorporate home practices
 Use of culturally and
linguistically responsive
teaching practices

Categories
Culture as Content:

Culture as Context:
No family role in curriculum:

Family as equal partner:
Culturally responsive teaching practices
not observed:

Culturally responsive teaching practices
observed:
Themes
Culture as Context for Learning:

A shift from viewing culture as content to be learned
to viewing culture as context for learning

Authentic Home to School Connection:

A shift from viewing family as having little to no role
in curriculum due a deficit perspective to partnering
with teachers for an authentic home to school
connection because teachers recognize families’
collective funds of knowledge
Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices to
Improve Instruction:

A shift from using traditional teaching practices to
using more culturally and linguistically responsive
teaching practices with students and their families in
effort to improve instruction and student learning

274
Table 14, continued
 Literacy is a school domain
 English language only
 Reading and Writing

 Family practices
acknowledged
 Other languages included
 Reading, writing, listening &
speaking
 Technology/Computer
Literacy included

 Parents are responsible
 Parents job to motivate

 Teachers can create lessons
 Engage parents
 Have knowledge
 Teachers share resources
 Teachers partner with
families

Traditional View:

Expansive View:

No Agency or Expertise:

Agency and Expertise:
Culture as Context for Learning:

A shift from viewing culture as content to be
learned to viewing culture as context for learning

Authentic Home to School Connection:

A shift from viewing family as having little to no
role in curriculum due a deficit perspective to
partnering with teachers for an authentic home to
school connection because teachers recognize
families’ collective funds of knowledge

275
Figure 14: Pre- and Post-Intervention Results for All Teachers on Culturally Responsive
Teaching Practices Continuum by Dimension 1, Culture as a Context for
Learning

1
2
1
3
2
4
1
2
3
4
5
Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention
Contiuuum Levels
Sarah (T1)
Claudia (T2)
Noemi (T3)
Norah (T4)
Rosa (T5)
276
Figures 15: Pre- and Post-Intervention Results for All Teachers on Culturally Responsive
Teaching Practices Continuum by Dimension 2, Authentic Home to School
Connection

2
4
1
3
3
5
1
2
3
4
5
Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention
Continuun Levels
Sarah (T1)
Claudia (T2)
Noemi (T3)
Norah (T4)
Rosa (T5)
277
Figure 16: Pre- and Post-Intervention Results for all Teacher on Culturally Responsive
Continuum by Dimension 3, Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices
to Improve Instruction

3
4
2
3
5
1
2
3
4
5
Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention
Continuum Levels
Sarah (T1)
Claudia (T2)
Noemi (T3)
Norah (T4)
Rosa (T5)
278
Figure 17: Pre- and Post-Intervention Results for all Teachers on Culturally Responsive
Teaching Practices Continuum by Dimension 4, Incorporating Family
Literacy Practices

1
3
2
4
1
2
3
4
5
Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention
Sarah (T1)
Claudia (T2)
Noemi (T3)
Norah (T4)
Rosa (T5)
279
Figure 18: Pre- and Post-Intervention Results for all Teachers on Culturally Responsive
Teaching Practices Continuum by Dimension 5, Teacher Agency and Self-
Efficacy

1
4
2
.
3 3
5
1
2
3
4
5
Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention
Sarah (T1)
Claudia (T2)
Noemi (T3)
Norah (T4)
Rosa (T5)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Literacy is the foundation for high academic achievement and educational attainment

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Supporting the professional development of early childhood educators: a case study of an emergent literacy intervention project

PDF

Teacher perception on coaching and effective professional development implementation

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high schol: a focus on teacher collaboration and cultural competence

PDF

Developing cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

An investigation on the integration of science and literacy for English language learners

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high school: a focus on teaching strategies and placement options

PDF

Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Developing a critical consciousness toward culturally responsive teaching through critical reflection: A professional development curriculum for elementary teachers

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Examining teacher pre-service/credential programs and school site professional development and implementation of culturally relevant teaching of BIPOC students

PDF

The adolescent learner's perspective on intensive literacy intervention curriculum

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

Asset Metadata

Creator Pelayo, Icela (author)

Core Title Culturally responsive coaching and professional development for teachers working with English learners: a case study in early childhood education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/10/2012

Defense Date 05/08/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag culturally responsive pedagogy,early childhood education,English learners,language and literacy development,multilingual learning context,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher professional development and coaching,Urban Education

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert (committee chair), Ragusa, Gisele (committee member), Salcido, Ramon (committee member)

Creator Email icelapelayo@yahoo.com,ipelayo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-54924

Unique identifier UC11290265

Identifier usctheses-c3-54924 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PelayoIcel-933.pdf

Dmrecord 54924

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Pelayo, Icela

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA